The Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA") prohibits
a "video tape service provider" from "knowingly
disclos[ing], to any person, personally identifiable
information concerning any consumer of such provider."
18 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(1). The statute unambiguously defines
"consumer" to include a "subscriber of goods or services
from a video tape service provider." Id. § 2710(a)(1).
The courts below assumed Washington Newspaper
was a "video tape service provider." Ms. Pileggi
subscribed to a newsletter from Washington Newspaper,
which subsequently disclosed her video-watching history
to Facebook. Yet both lower courts dismissed Ms. Pileggi's
VPPA claim. They did so because, in their view, she did
not subscribe to an audiovisual good or service from
Washington Newspaper and, thus, was not a statutory
"consumer."

The question here—which this Court has already
agreed to answer in Salazar v. Paramount Global ,
No. 25-459—is whether the phrase "goods or services
from a video tape service provider," as used in the
VPPA's definition of "consumer," refers to all of a video
tape service provider's goods or services or only to its
audiovisual goods or services.

Whether the phrase 'goods or services from a video tape service provider' in the Video Privacy Protection Act's definition of 'consumer' refers to all goods or services provided by a video tape service provider or only to its audiovisual goods or services