MICHAEL SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PARAMOUNT GLOBAL, dba 247Sports - Articles

All Content

MICHAEL SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PARAMOUNT GLOBAL, dba 247Sports

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Apr 3, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Joshua I. Hammack, BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: David L. Yohai, WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, New York, New York, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Joshua I. Hammack, BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP, Washington, D.C., Brandon M. Wise, PEIFFER, WOLF, CARR, KANE, CONWAY & WISE, St. Louis, Missouri, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: David L. Yohai, WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, New York, New York, Robb S. Harvey, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Adam G. Unikowsky, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.

Judge(s): BATCHELDER, NALBANDIAN, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. The Video Privacy Protection Act—as the name suggests—arose out of a desire to protect personal privacy in the records of the rental, purchase, or delivery of “audio visual materials.” Spurred by the publication of Judge Robert Bork’s video rental history on the eve of his confirmation hearings, Congress imposed stiff penalties on any “video tape service provider” who discloses personal information that identifies one of their “consumers” as having requested specific “audio visual materials.” This case is about what “goods or services” a person must rent, purchase, or subscribe to in order to qualify as a “consumer” under the Act. Is “goods or services” limited to audio-visual content—or does it extend to any and all products or services that a store could provide? Michael Salazar claims that his subscription to a 247Sports e-newsletter qualifies him as a “consumer.” But since he did not subscribe to “audio visual materials,” the district court held that he was not a “consumer” and dismissed the complaint. We agree and so AFFIRM.

Attachments: