Salazar v. Paramount Global
No. 25-459 · October Term 2026 · Privacy · argument October 14, 2026
Expected vote 5–4 for Salazar. Chance of a unanimous ruling 42%.
Before oral argument the model knows only the case's structure: the issue area, which way the lower court ruled, and each justice's record on both. That is not enough to separate cases, so every unargued case carries the petitioner's base rate. The transcript features arrive within days of argument and the number becomes a call.
The case
Michael Salazar is suing Paramount Global, the owner of 247Sports, alleging that Paramount violated the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by disclosing his Facebook ID and video-watching history to Facebook. The lower courts assumed that Paramount is a "video tape service provider" and that the disclosed information is "personally identifiable information." The Supreme Court must now determine whether the VPPA's definition of "consumer"—specifically, the phrase "goods or services from a video tape service provider"—applies to all of a provider's goods or services or only to its audiovisual offerings.
- The core legal question is the scope of the term "consumer" under the VPPA, specifically whether it encompasses all services offered by a video tape service provider or is limited to audiovisual services.
- A broad interpretation of "consumer" would extend VPPA protections to subscribers of any service from a video tape service provider, regardless of whether the service is video-related.
- A narrow interpretation would limit VPPA protections only to those consumers who specifically subscribe to or obtain video materials or services.
- The Court's decision will clarify the extent of privacy protections afforded by the VPPA in the context of modern digital media companies that offer a variety of services beyond just video.
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-02. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
The Video Privacy Protection Act (“ VPPA ”) contains a one-sentence liability clause. It prohibits a “ video tape service provider ” from “ knowingly disclos[ing], to any person, personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such provider. ” 18 U.S.C. § 2710 (b)( 1 ). The statute defines “ consumer ” broadly to include a “ subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider. ” Id. § 2710 (a)( 1 ). It defines “ personally identifiable information ” to include information that “ identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape service provider. ” Id. § 2710 (a)( 3 ). And it defines “ video tape service provider ” to include those in the business of delivering audiovisual materials. Id . § 2710 (a)( 4 ). Paramount is a “ video tape service provider. ” Both courts below assumed as much. Michael Salazar subscribed to Paramount ’ s online newsletter, which he used to view videos. Paramount then disclosed Mr. Salazar ’ s Facebook ID and his video-watching history to Facebook. That information counts as “ personally identifiable information. ” Again, both courts below assumed as much. The question here is whether the phrase “ goods or services from a video tape service provider, ” as used in the VPPA ’ s definition of “ consumer, ” refers to all of a video tape service provider ’ s goods or services or only to its audiovisual goods or services.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Privacy cases, and when the lower court ruled conservative; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court conservative | At argument |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts often emphasizes textualism and the plain meaning of statutory language, which could lead him to scrutinize the specific wording of "goods or services from a video tape service provider" to determine its breadth. | 57% Salazar | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 81% Privacy · 26 votes | 61% lower court conservative · 734 votes | not yet argued |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas is a strong proponent of originalism and textualism, and he may focus on the common understanding of the terms at the time the VPPA was enacted, potentially favoring a strict interpretation of the statute's scope. | 51% Salazar | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 78% Privacy · 55 votes | 43% lower court conservative · 1,365 votes | not yet argued |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito often considers the practical implications of statutory interpretations and may look to the legislative intent behind the VPPA to understand whether its protections were meant to be broadly applied or narrowly tailored to video rentals. | 51% Salazar | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 74% Privacy · 23 votes | 48% lower court conservative · 722 votes | not yet argued |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor frequently champions privacy rights and consumer protection, which could lead her to favor a broader interpretation of the VPPA to ensure greater safeguards for individuals' personal information. | 66% Salazar | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 43% Privacy · 21 votes | 76% lower court conservative · 594 votes | not yet argued |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan often employs a pragmatic approach to statutory interpretation, considering both the text and the statute's purpose, and she may consider how a narrow or broad reading aligns with the VPPA's overall goal of protecting video privacy. | 66% Salazar | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 65% Privacy · 17 votes | 75% lower court conservative · 543 votes | not yet argued |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch is a textualist who often emphasizes the precise wording of statutes, and he may carefully analyze the definitions provided in the VPPA to determine if the phrase "goods or services" explicitly limits itself to audiovisual content. | 63% Salazar | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 78% Privacy · 9 votes | 59% lower court conservative · 286 votes | not yet argued |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh often seeks to apply statutes as written, and he may look to the ordinary meaning of the words in the VPPA's definition of "consumer" to determine the scope of its application. | 63% Salazar | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 75% Privacy · 8 votes | 62% lower court conservative · 244 votes | not yet argued |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett is known for her textualist approach to statutory interpretation, and she will likely focus on the plain language of the VPPA's definitions to ascertain the intended scope of "goods or services." | 57% Salazar | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 80% Privacy · 5 votes | 60% lower court conservative · 178 votes | not yet argued |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson often considers the real-world impact of legal interpretations and may be inclined to a reading of the VPPA that provides robust protection for consumer privacy in the digital age, consistent with the statute's protective aims. | 66% Salazar | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | — | 80% lower court conservative · 127 votes | not yet argued |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the served model, which also reads the bench-wide transcript signal and how long each side held the podium.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-02.