WLF Asks Supreme Court to Rebuff Attack on Personalized Ads

“247Sports is no Casablanca. Salazar wants to conflate them to bring down personalized advertising. The Court shouldn’t fall for it.”
—Zac Morgan, WLF Senior Litigation Counsel

Click here to read WLF’s brief.

(Washington, DC)—Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a Sixth Circuit decision that prevented the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) from being used as a cudgel against personalized advertising. WLF was joined on the brief by TechFreedom.

The case arises from a college sports newsletter. Michael Salazar subscribed to 247Sports, which is offered free by Paramount. When he did so, Paramount acquired some of Mr. Salazar’s data and used it to fashion ads for him. Salazar contends that this violates the VPPA—a statute passed in the aftermath of the leaking of Judge Bork’s video tape rental history to the media. The VPPA allows any “consumer” of “goods or services” from a “video tape service provider” to sue if the provider reveals personal information without consent. Salazar argues that even the purchase of a coffee mug or clicking for a free e-newsletter fits the bill.

WLF’s brief explains why Salazar is wrong. The words “goods or services” may sound capacious, but courts read words in context, not isolation. The Bork-laden backstory for the VPPA counsels a narrow reading: the law was passed to prevent the disclosure of the purchase or rental histories of a person’s home movies or similar longform A/V materials. Newsletters aren’t like video tapes, so Salazar isn’t covered by the VPPA. That’s a good thing—Salazar’s true mission is to take down targeted advertising, a beneficial practice that helps buyers and sellers alike by making sales pitches more efficient.