“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
John Nalbandian, nominated by Donald Trump to the Sixth Circuit court of appeals, wrote a 2-1 decision that limited the scope of a federal consumer privacy protection statute in favor of big business. The April 2025 ruling was in Salazar v Paramount Global.
What happened in this case?
Michael Salazar began a digital subscription to 247Sports.com, a website owned by Paramount. He signed up for a digital newsletter and watched videos on the site, all relating to college sports. He contends that through a Facebook Pixel that Paramount installed on the site, Paramount “collected data about his identity and the videos he watched” and then disclosed that information to Facebook without his consent.
Salazar filed a class action against Paramount under the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). That law authorizes civil lawsuits for fines and punitive damages against any “video tape service provider” that “knowingly discloses” any personally identifiable information” of a “consumer,” including information about the “specific video materials or services” that the consumer has “requested or obtained.” The law states that a “consumer” is “any renter, purchaser or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” The lower court dismissed the complaint as a matter of law, maintaining that Salazar was not a “consumer” under the statute. Salazar appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
How did Nalbandian and the Sixth Circuit rule and why is the decision dangerous?
Nalbandian’s 2-1 decision agreed with the lower court that Salazar should not be considered a “consumer” under the VPPA. According to Nalbandian, the most “natural reading” of the statute is that a person is a “consumer” only if he “subscribes to ‘goods or services’ in the nature of video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials.” Because Salazar did not do so, Nalbandiam maintained, he was not a “consumer” under the VPPA.
Judge Rachel Bloomekatz strongly dissented, explaining that Nalabandian’s ruling contradicted both the “plain text” of the law and the decisions of other courts. She explained that the statute classifies a “consumer” as anyone who purchases or subscribes to any goods or services from a video tape service provider, not just video cassettes or similar materials. The statute “doesn’t have this limitation,” she wrote. Instead, the majority has improperly “written it in.” The result of the majority ruling, she pointed out, would significantly limit the scope of the protection provided by the VPPA and contradict the views of the Second and Seventh Circuits on the issue.
Nalbandian’s opinion obviously harms the ability of Michael Salazar to get relief for the invasion of privacy he contends Paramount has caused. It also sets a precedent limiting the scope and extent of VPPA’s protection form other corporate misconduct, particularly in the Sixth Circuit, which includes Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The case also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.