The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case that could redefine the scope of a privacy law originally passed in 1988 to protect video rental records, raising questions about how such protections apply in the digital age. The law, known as the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), was enacted following public outrage over the disclosure of then-judge Robert H. Bork’s rented videotape list during his failed Supreme Court nomination.

At issue is whether the VPPA’s provisions extend to consumers who access video content online through streaming platforms or newsletters, rather than traditional in-store rentals or physical purchases. The case involves Michael Salazar, a California resident who subscribed to a free daily newsletter from Paramount Global via 247Sports.com, which included links to video content. Salazar alleges that Paramount shared his personally identifiable information—including his Facebook identifier and details about videos he watched—with Facebook using tracking technology, which was then used for targeted advertising.

Salazar’s legal team argues that he qualifies as a “consumer” under the VPPA, which protects individuals who obtain video materials or services from a “videotape service provider.” They contend that the statute’s language broadly encompasses modern digital video consumption. Salazar is seeking to hold Paramount accountable for unauthorized sharing of his viewing data, which, under the law, could involve damages of $2,500 per violation.

Paramount, however, counters that Salazar does not meet the definition of a consumer intended by the statute, emphasizing that the law was designed to protect video rental privacy from the VHS era, not to regulate online marketing practices. Paramount’s attorney cautioned that applying the law to internet-based content could disrupt the business models that rely on targeted advertising, which subsidizes much of the free content available online. He argued that only those who engage in explicit transactions for video content, such as paid subscriptions, should be covered.

During the 90-minute oral argument, justices from across the ideological spectrum grappled with interpreting the 35-year-old statute’s language in the context of contemporary digital technology. Some, including Justice Elena Kagan, suggested a broad interpretation of “consumer” that would include users of online video services, while others, notably Justice Samuel Alito, expressed skepticism, noting the original law’s connection to physical rental stores. Both Justice Kagan and Justice Brett Kavanaugh highlighted the option for companies to avoid liability by obtaining consumer consent before sharing data.

The broader business community weighed in through court filings, voicing concern that an expansive ruling could expose any website posting video content and employing common analytics tools to substantial liability, potentially stifling online advertising practices.

The court gave no clear indication of how it might rule, and several justices signaled the possibility of remanding the case to lower courts to clarify unresolved issues. The outcome is expected to have significant implications for privacy protections and the regulation of digital advertising across a wide range of internet services.