Enacted in 1988, the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) makes it unlawful for a “video tape service provider” to “knowingly disclose[], to any person, personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such provider.” The statute further defines “consumer” as “any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” The Second Circuit today considered whether someone who subscribes to the NBA’s online newsletter via NBA.com, and watches videos posted online at that site, is a consumer — finding that they are. Thus, a plaintiff could bring a claim that the NBA violated the VPPA based on allegations that the NBA disclosed his Facebook ID and video-watching history to Meta (through its”Pixel Tracker”) without his consent.
In so doing, the court found that the plaintiff had adequately pled an injury, finding a sufficiently concrete injury analogous to the tort of public disclosure of private facts. As to the VPPA, the court held that to be a “consumer” under the statute does not one to be a renter, purchase, or subscriber of video goods or services, but rather any goods or services from a video tape service provider.
