Blockbuster-era law governing privacy of video rentals gets a fresh look from the Supreme Court

WASHINGTON (AP) — In 1988, Congress enacted a law to protect the privacy of video rentals after a journalist published details of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork’s movie rental history during his Senate hearings. Nearly four decades later, the court is weighing how the Blockbuster-era statute fits into the modern age of digital commerce.

The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case exploring the extent to which companies from an array of sectors are obligated to protect the privacy of customers’ video-viewing data. A ruling could resolve a lower-court split over how a consumer qualifies for the law's protections.

Consumer advocates say the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 was broadly written to adapt to inevitable advances in technology and safeguard consumers' personal information.

Critics of the law view it as a relic that plaintiffs' lawyers are trying to exploit in a way that Congress could not have anticipated before the internet revolutionized commerce. They are urging the justices to reject an interpretation of the law that deprives companies of a vital source of revenue from targeted online advertising.

The current case was brought by a customer who subscribed to Paramount Global's online newsletter to view videos on its website 247Sports.com. Michael Salazar claims Paramount violated the law by disclosing his video-watching history to Facebook without his consent, allowing companies to use his personal information to create and display targeted advertising.

Justice Elena Kagan, who said the language of the statute is “relatively clear," stressed that it is easy for companies to obtain consent from customers to use their digital data.

“Going forward, you have two very simple solutions," Kagan told Paramount lawyer Paul Clement. “One is to get consent. Easy enough. People do it every day. And the other is to stop selling people's private information. Take your pick.”

“Yeah, or put everything behind a paywall. That would be great,” Clement responded sarcastically.

“Not the same thing,” Kagan said.

“Well, I think that's one way that people would try to deal with this,” Clement said.

Congress passed the law a year after a video store clerk provided a Washington City Paper reporter with a list of 146 movies rented by Bork, a federal appeals court judge at the time of his nomination by Republican President Ronald Reagan. The reporter's publication of “The Bork Tapes," on the eve of Bork's hearings in 1987 that ended with the Senate rejecting the nominee, fueled bipartisan outrage and led to the law's enactment.

Paramount's lawyers say lower courts have overwhelmingly rejected other attempts to expand the law’s reach, with district court judges dismissing most cases.

“And why do you think that is?” Justice Samuel Alito asked Salazar’s lawyer, Joshua Hammack. “Why do you think these smart lower court judges have rejected the kind of very literal interpretation of the statutory language that you’re presenting to us today?”

“I think there is, unfortunately, some reluctance to believe that Congress actually meant what it said in the context of this statute,” Hammack responded. “It wrote a broad law that is very protective of personally identifiable information.”

Paramount argues that Salazar does not meet the definition of a “consumer” under the law to qualify for its protections.

Rulings in two appeals courts defined a consumer, under this law, as anybody who purchases, rents or subscribes to any good or service from a videotape service provider. Two other appeals courts adopted a narrower definition of consumer limited to goods and services with audiovisual content.

Only the Supreme Court "can resolve the split and bring uniformity to this important area of federal law,” Salazar’s lawyers wrote.

Paramount says Salazar has no basis to broaden the scope of the law. The company says the law merely prohibits video rental stores from disclosing customers' rental histories without consent.

“Salazar seeks to transmogrify it into a prohibition against targeted advertising on the Internet,” Paramount attorneys wrote.

Paramount says 247Sports is a sports news website that posts video clips with articles and photos free of charge.

“That is a completely different business from renting video cassette tapes. The VPPA does not address it,” company lawyers wrote.

The Supreme Court is pictured Monday, Oct. 5, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace's former fiance and two of his business associates were charged with sex crimes and voyeurism on Wednesday over an episode the South Carolina congresswoman described in detail during a speech last year on the House floor about how crimes against women are not investigated thoroughly.

John Douglas Osborne committed sex acts on a 23-year-old incapacitated and intoxicated woman while Mace's ex-fiance Patrick Bryant and Eric Bernard Bowman watched, according to sworn statements by agents from the State Law Enforcement Division, which brought the charges.

The men talked about who would assault the woman beforehand, took photos and recorded the assault, which was also seen on a security system feed at the home in Sullivan's Island, an affluent suburb of Charleston, state agents said. The woman had fallen into a pool and was passed out on a couch covering herself with a pillow, agents said.

Another woman who happened to be watching the feed saw the assault and took pictures and wrote about it in a journal, police said. Mace and Bryant were not yet engaged at the time of the October 2018 assault.

Osborne, 46, is charged with first-degree assault and battery and two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. Bryant, 53, and Bowman, 46, are each charged with voyeurism.

Along with the voyeurism charge, Bowman was also charged with obstruction of justice after agents said he did a factory reset on a cellphone he knew investigators were seeking in a search warrant, and with publishing the name of a victim of criminal sexual conduct after posting the victim’s name and a video of her on X.

Bryant didn't return a message seeking comment on Wednesday, and attorneys who have been listed as representing Bowman and Osborne in other cases did not immediately return messages.

Mace, a Republican, described the assault at length in a nearly hourlong speech in February 2025 that named the men and described other photos and videos found when she looked at Bryant's cellphone when they were still together.

Mace said she “accidentally uncovered some of the most heinous crimes against women imaginable. We’re talking about rape, non-consensual photos, non-consensual videos of women and underage girls, and the premeditated, calculated exploitation of women and girls in my district.”

At the time, Bryant completely denied the allegations. “I take this matter seriously and will cooperate fully with any necessary legal processes to clear my name,” he told The Associated Press.

The State Law Enforcement Division didn't say if their investigation into any of the men is continuing.

After the arrests, Mace released a statement detailing the 25 bills she says will protect victims of sexual assault, harassment or discrimination, including in retaliatory defamation and libel lawsuits that may result from allegations they bring to light.

The Republican, who is leaving the House this term after losing her bid to be South Carolina governor, introduced a proposal this week to require that anyone who brings such a case and loses must pay attorney fees for the defendant.

“Protecting women and holding predators accountable isn’t a slogan. It’s been one of my top priorities in Congress. For too long, survivors have faced broken systems while predators exploited loopholes and walked free,” Mace said in her statement.

FILE - Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., listens during a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform markup business meeting, Jan. 21, 2026, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)