{
  "id": 14540000,
  "title": "Supreme Court Justices Laugh at Lawyer's Answer in Paramount Case",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/14/supreme-court-justices-laugh-at-lawyers-answer-in-paramount-case",
  "topic": "culture",
  "section": "Culture",
  "published": "2026-10-14T21:30:04.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Newsweek",
    "slug": "newsweek",
    "url": "https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-justices-laugh-at-lawyers-answer-in-paramount-case-12570038"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "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.",
  "summary": "The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case that could have implications for online privacy lawsuits.",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}