Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on lemmy.world

10 replies

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