NBA: SCOTUS Should Review VPPA Case Despite Tossed Suit
Though a district court dropped a Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) case against the NBA in October, the basketball association argued again yesterday in a court document that the U.S. Supreme Court should still review the case.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
A conference in the case (docket 24-994) is set for Friday at the Supreme Court.
The scuttled case, Salazar v. NBA, centers on the debate about what it means to be a consumer under the 1988 statute (see 2501100009). A decision from the 2nd Circuit in October 2024 broadened the definition, but there has since been a circuit split on the issue (see 2504150047).
In March, the NBA sought a Supreme Court review (see 2503190047), though plaintiff Michael Salazar has consistently argued the case is a poor vehicle for resolving definition questions (see 2506300062 and 2508130055). The NFL and ad and retail groups have sided with the NBA, calling for high court review (see 2505020048).
“The district court’s ruling doesn’t change the need for the Court’s immediate intervention,” and in fact “confirm[s] that this litigation is live and hotly contested,” according to the NBA’s brief to the Supreme Court. “The Court’s review here wouldn’t encounter any vehicle problem. Rather, it would create a major problem for Salazar.”
“This case remains the ideal vehicle,” as “the VPPA question presented is teed up and outcome-determinative,” said the NBA. “The ongoing Second Circuit appeal -- which that court would likely pause if this Court grants review -- ensures that the question presented here will remain live and outcome-determinative.”
Judge Jennifer Rochon of the U.S. District Court for Southern New York dismissed case 1:22-cv-07935 in October on the grounds that an ordinary person would be unable to identify the plaintiff with information that was allegedly transmitted via the tracking pixel (see 2510070030).