Skip to content

Government & PolicyDeveloping

Supreme Court weighs whether 1988 video privacy law covers online subscribers

By

Coverage spectrum

Covered by 11 outlets across the spectrum.

14 articles in total, 1 of them opinion. The spectrum counts each outlet once and leaves opinion out. How we measure bias

White marble Supreme Court building facade with columns, pediment sculpture, and blue sky.
Image via Roll CallHow images are chosenReport this image

The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in Salazar v. Paramount Global, testing whether a 1988 video privacy law covers consumers who subscribe to services unrelated to video. A college sports newsletter subscriber alleges that Paramount Global shared his video viewing history with Facebook. The law was passed in 1988 for video rental records and last amended in 2013. Reports differ on the court’s lean: some say justices appeared skeptical of the suit, while one says the court seems likely to side with the customer.

Headline and summary written by Mantle’s AI from the coverage below, under published rules. How this works

What happened

Key points

Each point shows who reports it, from Far Left to Far Right.

  1. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in Salazar v. Paramount Global.

    Across the spectrumReported byFar Left2Center3Right1Far Right3See the outletsHide the outlets
    Far Left
    The Nation, The New Republic
    Center
    The Hill, Roll Call, Newsweek
    Right
    The Center Square
    Far Right
    The Epoch Times, Just the News, The Daily Signal

  2. A subscriber to a college sports newsletter alleges that Paramount Global shared his video viewing history with Facebook.

    Reported byFar Left1Center1Far Right1See the outletsHide the outlets
    Far Left
    The New Republic
    Center
    The Hill
    Far Right
    The Epoch Times

  3. The justices are weighing whether the Video Privacy Protection Act protects consumers who subscribe to services that are not video content.

    Reported byCenter1Far Right1See the outletsHide the outlets
    Center
    The Hill
    Far Right
    The Epoch Times

  4. The Video Privacy Protection Act was first passed in 1988 and last amended in 2013.

    Reported byFar Left1Center2See the outletsHide the outlets
    Far Left
    The Nation
    Center
    The Hill, Roll Call

  5. Justices questioned how far the law should reach, and reports differ on which way the court appears to be leaning.

    Reported byFar Left1Center1Right1Far Right2See the outletsHide the outlets
    Far Left
    The New Republic
    Center
    Roll Call
    Right
    The Center Square
    Far Right
    Just the News, The Daily Signal

What is contested

Where accounts differ

Points the coverage does not agree on, and who says what.

  • The justices appear likely to side with the subscriber suing Paramount Global.

    The New Republic, a left-side outlet, says the court appeared likely to side with the customer and that several justices signaled they might limit such suits in future cases. The Center Square and The Daily Signal, right-side outlets, say the justices appeared skeptical of the consumer lawsuit.

How each side tells it

Compare views

Every side reports that the Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday over whether a 1988 video privacy law covers online subscribers. Left outlets stress digital privacy stakes and predicted outcomes, center outlets the statute’s reach, and right outlets the justices’ skepticism of the suit.

  • the left

    4 outlets · 1 opinion

    Left headlines frame the case as a digital privacy issue; the Far Left Nation and New Republic state predicted outcomes or verdicts, while the Post and Times name the 1980s law.

    Supreme Court Weighs Privacy Law From the Videotape Era of ‘Be Kind, Rewind’
    The New York TimesLeftAll left-leaning headlines

  • the center

    3 outlets

    Center headlines describe the argument neutrally, naming the 1980s statute and the question of whether subscriptions to other services are covered.

    Supreme Court case pits 1980s video rental law versus modern newsletters
    The HillCenterAll center headlines

  • the right

    4 outlets

    Right headlines report the justices’ skepticism toward the consumer lawsuit or lead with the case name; the Far Right Daily Signal uses a Blockbuster hook.

    U.S. Supreme Court appears skeptical of consumer privacy lawsuit
    The Center SquareRightAll right-leaning headlines

The words they chose

Language to notice

Words that carry a judgement beyond the facts. Tap a highlighted word anywhere on the page to see why.

  • Left3

    data-hungry tech giantsasinineDigital Privacy Victory

  • Center1

    Laugh at

  • Right0

    No loaded words in its own voice.

In the outlets’ own words

  • Loaded verb

    Laugh atMore neutral: Justices React to Lawyer’s Answer in Paramount Case

    The headline presents the justices’ laughter as mockery of the lawyer, while the article reports only that they laughed during the argument.

    Supreme Court Justices Laugh at Lawyer's Answer in Paramount Case

    Used byNewsweek (Center)

  • Loaded modifier

    data-hungry tech giantsMore neutral: technology companies that collect user data

    The adjective attributes an appetite to the companies that the reporting does not establish.

    …making this up) Blockbuster Video can be used to protect us from prying, data-hungry tech giants.

    Used byThe Nation (Far Left)

  • Loaded modifier

    asinineMore neutral: an unusual use of

    The writer calls the statute absurd in his own voice, passing judgement on the law’s merit rather than describing it.

    Which… is asinine.

    Used byThe Nation (Far Left)

  • Loaded modifier

    Digital Privacy VictoryMore neutral: Supreme Court Appears Inclined to Rule for Customer in Privacy Case

    The headline presents a predicted, undecided outcome as a win for one side, while the description says the court only appeared likely to rule that way.

    The Supreme Court Is Leaning Toward a Digital Privacy Victory

    Used byThe New Republic (Far Left)

See the full language guide

See for yourself

Side by side

What each side leads with and what it leaves out. Open a side to read its headlines.

From the left

4 outlets · 1 opinion

Leads with

  • digital privacy stakes
  • the 1980s video-store law
  • predicted outcome of the case

Leaves out

  • the college sports newsletter subscription at the center of the suit

Reported by other sides, not found in this side’s coverage.

See the 5 headlines from the leftHide the headlines
  • The New RepublicFar Left

    The Supreme Court Is Leaning Toward a Loaded modifier“Digital Privacy Victory”The headline presents a predicted, undecided outcome as a win for one side, while the description says the court only appeared likely to rule that way.More neutral: Supreme Court Appears Inclined to Rule for Customer in Privacy CaseDisagree with this highlight?

    The Supreme Court appeared likely to side with a customer who invoked a semi-obscure federal law to sue Paramount for sharing his personal information with Facebook during oral arguments on Wednesday, though multiple justices signaled that they might constrain such lawsuits in …

    Read at The New Republic (opens in a new tab)
  • ABC NewsLeftAssociated Press report

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

    A 1988 law designed to protect the privacy of movie rentals in the age of Blockbuster Video is getting a fresh look from the Supreme Court

    Read at ABC News (opens in a new tab)
  • The New York TimesLeft

    Supreme Court Weighs Privacy Law From the Videotape Era of ‘Be Kind, Rewind’

    The justices will consider how the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 applies in the digital age of streaming videos, email newsletters and targeted advertisements.

    Read at The New York Times (opens in a new tab)
  • The Washington PostLeft

    Does a video store privacy law apply online? The Supreme Court will decide.

    The 1980s law prohibited video stores from disclosing what their customers rented. What does it mean in the streaming era?

    Read at The Washington Post (opens in a new tab)
  • The NationFar LeftOpinion

    Is Blockbuster Video the Answer to Our Digital Privacy Woes?

    Elie Mystal The Supreme Court is weighing whether a 1988 video-store law can be used to protect our digital privacy.

    Read at The Nation (opens in a new tab)

From the center

3 outlets

Leads with

  • scope of the 1988 statute
  • subscription-based services
  • the lawsuit against Paramount
See the 3 headlines from the centerHide the headlines

From the right

4 outlets

Leads with

  • justices’ skepticism of the lawsuit
  • limits on the consumer suit
  • Blockbuster-era framing

Leaves out

  • implications for targeted digital advertising

Reported by other sides, not found in this side’s coverage.

See the 4 headlines from the rightHide the headlines

Articles you open from here build My Mix, a private picture of how your reading spreads across the spectrum, kept on this device. What is My Mix?

The left is Far Left and Left together. The right is Right and Far Right together. Every outlet keeps its own five-point rating.

Who reported it when

How the coverage built up

  • Left

    First to report

    The Washington Post, Oct 14, 5:00 AM EDT

  • Center

    1 hr later

    Its first report, Oct 14, 6:00 AM EDT

  • Right

    5 hr 10 min later

    Its first report, Oct 14, 10:10 AM EDT

See the order the outlets reported inHide the order
  1. The Washington PostLeftOct 14, 5:00 AM EDT
  2. The New York TimesLeftOct 14, 5:01 AM EDT
  3. The HillCenterOct 14, 6:00 AM EDT
  4. The Epoch TimesFar RightOct 14, 10:10 AM EDT
  5. Roll CallCenterOct 14, 10:45 AM EDT
  6. The Center SquareRightOct 14, 12:22 PM EDT
  7. The Daily SignalFar RightOct 14, 1:50 PM EDT
  8. ABC NewsLeftOct 14, 3:49 PM EDT
  9. NewsweekCenterOct 14, 5:30 PM EDT
  10. The New RepublicFar LeftOct 16, 6:00 AM EDT

Times are the ones the outlets published in their own feeds, in Eastern time. Opinion is left out. Just the News gave only a date, so it is not placed.

Read next

Help someone else find the truth beneath the surface

Most people see one side of a story. Share this one, so they can see how every side is telling it and decide for themselves.

Email it

Seen a mistake? Tell us what is wrong with this page