Supreme Court Weighs Video Privacy Law as Digital Advertising Faces New Scrutiny

Marketing teams have long relied on tracking technologies to understand audience behavior, personalize campaigns, and improve advertising performance. But a new legal battle before the U.S. Supreme Court is raising an important question: when does collecting customer data for targeted advertising cross the line into a privacy violation?

In October 2026, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Salazar v. Paramount Global, a case that could reshape how the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) applies to online platforms, digital tracking, and targeted advertising. The decision could have significant implications for businesses that use customer data to drive marketing campaigns.

Why a 1988 Privacy Law Matters to Digital Marketers

Congress enacted the Video Privacy Protection Act in 1988 after a newspaper published Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's video rental history without his permission.

The law generally prohibits video service providers from knowingly disclosing personally identifiable information about consumers' video-viewing activities without their informed consent, subject to statutory exceptions.

Today, the same law is being tested in a very different environment, where websites, advertising pixels, and social media platforms can share information about users' online behavior.

The case involves Michael Salazar, who alleges that Paramount Global's 247Sports website shared his Facebook identifier and video-viewing information with Meta through its tracking technology. Salazar argues that the disclosure violated the VPPA after he subscribed to the website's free newsletter.

Paramount disputes his interpretation of the law, arguing that subscribing to a newsletter does not automatically make someone a protected consumer under the statute.

The Supreme Court must now consider how broadly the law's definition of a consumer should apply to modern digital services.

What the Case Could Mean for Targeted Advertising

At the heart of the dispute is the relationship between data collection, consent, and personalized advertising.

Businesses routinely use tracking pixels and similar technologies to measure campaign performance, build audience segments, and deliver relevant advertisements. However, these tools can also transmit information to third parties, creating privacy risks when the data shared reveals sensitive details about individual behavior.

A ruling favoring Salazar could broaden the range of users eligible to bring claims under the VPPA, potentially increasing legal exposure for websites that offer video content alongside newsletters or other digital services.

A ruling favoring Paramount could narrow the law's application to certain online interactions, limiting some privacy lawsuits involving tracking pixels.

Either way, the case highlights a broader challenge for marketing teams: a technology's ability to collect or share data does not automatically mean every use is legally permissible.

Three Compliance Lessons for Financial Institutions

Although the case centers on a sports media website, its implications are worth watching for financial institutions (FIs) that rely on digital advertising and customer analytics.

1. Audit third-party tracking technologies.

Review the pixels, analytics tools, and advertising integrations deployed across marketing websites and landing pages. Understand what information they collect, where it goes, and which third parties receive it.

2. Make consent meaningful.

Do not assume that accepting general website terms automatically authorizes every type of data sharing. Ensure consent mechanisms are appropriate for the information collected, the intended use, and applicable legal requirements.

3. Strengthen marketing compliance oversight.

Marketing, legal, privacy, and technology teams should work together to review campaign assets, data-sharing practices, and third-party integrations. Documenting approvals and maintaining clear policies can help identify potential risks before campaigns launch.

For financial institutions operating under multiple regulatory requirements, these practices can also support more consistent governance across marketing channels.

Privacy Compliance Is Becoming a Marketing Responsibility

The Supreme Court's review of the VPPA demonstrates how older privacy laws can take on new significance as digital marketing evolves. It also reinforces the importance of understanding the full data lifecycle behind a campaign, not just the message customers see.

The court's decision in Salazar v. Paramount Global is still pending. Until it rules, businesses should avoid treating either interpretation as settled law and continue monitoring developments.

For regulated organizations, the bigger lesson is clear: effective marketing requires more than compelling creative and precise targeting. It also requires visibility into how customer information is collected, shared, and governed.

As advertising technology becomes more sophisticated, marketing compliance must keep pace with the systems powering personalization.