The US Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a case that asks whether the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) applies to users who sign up for newsletters from websites that use Meta’s tracking technology.

The lawsuit accuses Paramount Global of violating the VPPA by disclosing digital subscribers’ identities and video media information, without proper consent, to Facebook for targeted advertising purposes. Paramount Global runs 247Sports.com, through which plaintiff Michael Salazar had subscribed to a free email newsletter and viewed video clips. The website utilized Meta Pixel, which allegedly sent Salazar’s Facebook ID and browsing data to Facebook after his engagement with the site.

The case asks whether a person has to rent, purchase, or subscribe specifically to video content to be considered a “consumer,” or whether subscribing to any services, such as a free newsletter, triggers VPPA protections

Congress enacted the VPPA after a journalist published then-nominee Robert Bork’s video rental history during his contentious 1988 Supreme Court confirmation hearings. The statute prohibits “video tape service providers” from disclosing “personally identifiable information” about “consumers” who rent, purchase, or subscribe to their services.

Last April, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sided with Paramount in a 2-1 decision, holding that Salazar was not a “consumer” under the VPPA because he only subscribed to a free email newsletter rather than to “goods or services in the nature of video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials.” The majority opinion held that while “goods or services” might seem broad in isolation, the statutory context and the definition of “video tape service provider” limit its application.

The dissent argued that the majority improperly rewrote the VPPA by adding limitations Congress did not include in the plain text.

Paramount has argued that the VPPA is a “Blockbuster-era statute” designed to protect video rental records and does not regulate modern internet advertising–that 247Sports is not a video rental store or streaming service and therefore not a “video tape service provider.” The company claims Salazar is not a “consumer” because he signed up for a free email newsletter rather than renting, purchasing, or subscribing to actual video content.

Salazar’s claims would likely fail in certain federal appellate courts that have rejected similar pixel-based claims, reasoning that shared computer code doesn’t qualify as “personally identifiable information.”

The case comes during growing concern over data privacy. Last month, Austria’s Supreme Court ruled that Meta’s personalized advertising model practices violate EU data protection law. Last February, Canada opened an investigation into X/Twitter to determine if its data collection for AI training models violates Canadian privacy laws.