Spyke
Savaran
lemmy.world

Well, in the least consumer friendly fashion given this court.

58
dance_ninja
lemmy.world

The Supreme Court is taking up a case on whether Paramount violated the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by disclosing a user’s viewing history to Facebook. The case, Michael Salazar v. Paramount Global, hinges on the law’s definition of the word “consumer.”

34
Proxreply
lemmy.world

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.

7
rmt_online
sh.itjust.works

Depending on how they rule, this could set us back about a couple of decades!!! :-(

27
mrnobodyreply
reddthat.com

Could you explain? Why would that set us back? You mean if Paramount wins?

2
dan
upvote.au

Interesting case. If the plaintiff wins, I suspect this will mean that sites with videos won't be able to use third-party analytics scripts (not just Meta pixel, but also things like Google Analytics), which would be a pretty large change for the industry.

I'd love to see first-party tracking become more popular again. I self-host Plausible for my sites, but I've considered switching to Swetrix.

21

You reached the end

Supreme Court To Decide How 1988 Videotape Privacy Law Applies To Online Video | Spyke