#Why VPPA video privacy law applies to a dealership website
The origin here is a video store. The VPPA was written after a newspaper published a list of videos a Supreme Court nominee had rented, and Congress responded with a law restricting disclosure of a person's video-viewing history without consent. The statute's language covers a 'video tape service provider' disclosing personally identifiable information tied to specific video content a person requested or obtained.
Courts have increasingly read that language to reach any business operating a website with video content, not just video rental stores, when an ad-tracking pixel transmits a record of which video a specific, identifiable visitor watched to a third-party ad platform. A vehicle walkaround video, a service-department explainer, or an inventory video tour are all video content in the sense the statute uses.
#The unsettled question the Supreme Court is now reviewing
The circuits sharply disagree here. Circuits have split on who counts as a covered 'consumer' under the statute, a question that determines whether a visitor who merely watched a video, without subscribing to anything or creating an account, is covered at all. Some circuits have read the term broadly; at least one major circuit narrowed it substantially in 2025.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari on exactly this question in January 2026, with argument expected in the Court's October 2026 term and a decision likely in early-to-mid 2027. Until that decision, the scope of who is covered differs by circuit, which means the exposure varies significantly depending on where a lawsuit would be filed, not just on the facts of a specific dealership's website.
#What raises or lowers VPPA video privacy exposure on a dealership site
The core fact pattern is simple: video plus a tracking pixel, on the same page. A page with a walkaround video and a retargeting pixel is the combination courts have looked at; a page with only inventory photos and no video content does not raise this specific theory.
Whether the visitor was identified, by a logged-in account, a form submission, or a persistent identifier tied to the pixel, connects to the 'consumer' question the Supreme Court is now reviewing, and is exactly the fact circuits have disagreed about.
What a specific dealership should do about its own video pages, retargeting pixels and consent flow while this question is unsettled is a decision for your attorney, informed by which circuit a claim would likely be filed in and how the store currently discloses tracking.
TABLE
How a 1988 law arrived at a dealership website in 2026
The statute has not changed. What courts read it to cover has, repeatedly, and is still moving.
| When | What happened |
|---|---|
| 1988 | VPPA enacted, restricting disclosure of a person's video rental history without consent |
| 2010s-2020s | Courts increasingly apply the statute to websites with video content, not just video rental businesses |
| 2025 | Circuits split on who counts as a covered 'consumer'; at least one major circuit narrows the term |
| January 2026 | U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari on the 'consumer' question (Salazar v. Paramount Global) |
| Expected 2027 | Decision expected, which will resolve the circuit split either broadly or narrowly |
Compiled 2026-09-13 from public reporting on VPPA litigation history and the Supreme Court's docket; not legal advice.
Where video and retargeting sit inside a broader advertising plan is covered on the car dealer advertising hub.