WASHINGTON – In 1988, Congress passed a law to protect people’s privacy when it comes to video rentals. This decision came after a journalist revealed the movie rental history of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork during his Senate hearings. Fast forward to today, and the Supreme Court is now looking at how this old law fits in our digital world.
Recently, the Supreme Court heard a case that asks whether companies in different industries have to protect customers’ video-viewing data. The outcome could clarify how we understand the law’s protections for consumers.
Consumer advocates argue that the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 was designed to adjust to future technologies and keep users’ personal information safe. However, some critics believe the law has become outdated and that it’s being misused by lawyers in ways that Congress never intended, especially since the internet has changed how businesses operate, particularly in targeted advertising.
This case was brought by Michael Salazar, a customer who signed up for Paramount Global’s newsletter to watch videos on its website, 247Sports.com. Salazar claims that Paramount shared his video-watching history with Facebook without his consent, which allowed companies to use his data for targeted ads.
Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that the law’s wording is quite clear and noted that it’s usually easy for companies to get consent from customers to use their data. “Going forward, you have two very simple solutions,” Kagan told Paramount’s lawyer, Paul Clement. “One is to get consent. Easy enough. People do it every day. And the other is to stop selling people’s private information. Take your pick.”
Clement responded with some sarcasm, implying that putting everything behind a paywall would also be a solution. Kagan quickly clarified that this wouldn’t solve the issue at hand.
The law was enacted a year after a video store clerk leaked a list of movies rented by Bork, prompting public outrage and leading to the law’s creation. Paramount’s lawyers argue that lower courts have often dismissed similar cases, suggesting that judges don’t support expanding the law’s reach too far.
When Justice Samuel Alito asked why lower court judges have rejected the broader interpretations of the law, Salazar’s lawyer, Joshua Hammack, explained that there seems to be a reluctance to accept the law’s protective intent. He emphasized that Congress wrote a broad law to safeguard personal information.
Paramount argues that Salazar doesn’t fit the law’s definition of a “consumer” who qualifies for these protections. While some appeals courts define a consumer as anyone purchasing or subscribing to services from a video provider, others limit it to those who access audiovisual content specifically.
The Supreme Court is now tasked with resolving this split to bring clarity to this important area of federal law. Paramount insists that Salazar has no grounds to broaden the law’s application, stating that it merely prohibits video rental stores from disclosing customer rental histories without consent.
Ultimately, this case highlights the ongoing debate about privacy and data protection in our increasingly digital world. As technology evolves, so too must our laws to ensure that consumer privacy is effectively safeguarded.
