Supreme Court Justices Laugh at Lawyer's Answer in Paramount Case
The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case that could have implications for online privacy lawsuits.
During arguments in the Salazar v. Paramount Global case, which could affect digital privacy litigation, the Supreme Court justices appeared amused by a lawyer's response. The case involves the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988, which aims to safeguard consumers' personal information. The justices heard arguments on Wednesday after the case was brought by Michael Salazar, who claims Paramount violated the law by disclosing his video-watching history on 247Sports.com to Facebook without his consent.
Salazar's lawyers argue that subscribing to a newsletter should make him a protected consumer under the 1988 law. Paramount's attorneys, however, claim he does not qualify as a consumer since he subscribed to a newsletter, not a video service. Chief Justice Roberts challenged Paramount's attorney Paul Clement's hypothetical examples, particularly Chick-fil-A, stating that the Court should focus on more difficult scenarios rather than easy ones.
Written by urgent.news from Newsweek's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
