# Federal Appeals Court Signals Support for Video Privacy Act Suit Against Internet Companies
A federal appeals court panel appears positioned to allow a lawsuit against internet companies to proceed under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), a 1988 statute enacted after Robert Bork's Supreme Court confirmation hearing became entangled in video rental disclosure controversy.
The VPPA, 18 U.S.C. Section 2710, originally restricted video rental stores from disclosing customer viewing records without written consent. The law carries statutory damages of $2,500 per violation, which scales dramatically when applied to millions of internet users. This financial exposure explains why tech companies have fought aggressively to exclude internet services from the statute's reach.
During oral arguments before the appeals court, judges pressed defense counsel on whether internet streaming services truly fall outside the VPPA's scope. The panel's questioning suggested skepticism toward arguments that the law applies only to physical video rental establishments. This signals the court may reject the internet companies' primary defense strategy: that Congress wrote the VPPA specifically for brick-and-mortar video stores that existed in 1988, not digital platforms.
The lawsuit involves allegations that defendants collected and shared user viewing data without proper consent mechanisms. Plaintiffs argue that streaming services, subscription video platforms, and related tech companies violated the VPPA by transmitting viewing history information to third parties such as advertisers and data brokers. Internet companies countered that their services do not qualify as "video tape service providers" under the statute's original definition.
Lower courts had split on this question. Some federal district judges embraced the narrow interpretation favored by tech defendants, holding the VPPA inapplicable to internet platforms. Other courts acknowledged that the law's language lacks explicit temporal limitation and could encompass modern streaming technologies.
The appeals panel's apparent inclination to allow the case forward creates substantial exposure for major internet and streaming companies. If the VPPA applies to internet services, defendants face class action liability potentially reaching billions of dollars across millions of users. Each unauthorized disclosure could trigger $2,500 in statutory damages, multiplied across entire subscriber bases.
This outcome would represent a major expansion of the VPPA's original enforcement scope. Internet companies would need to restructure consent mechanisms for sharing viewing data. They would face obligations to maintain detailed records proving affirmative consent before disclosing any subscriber viewing information to third parties. Privacy policies would require substantive revision to comply with the statute's strict consent requirements.
The case reflects broader tension between privacy statutes written in the pre-internet era and modern digital business models. Lawmakers in 1988 could not anticipate streaming services, algorithmic content recommendation, or the data broker ecosystem. Yet the VPPA's text does not limit itself to technologies existing when Congress enacted it. Courts now grapple with whether decades-old privacy laws should adapt to digital platforms through judicial interpretation.
A favorable ruling for plaintiffs would incentivize similar litigation under other legacy privacy statutes that may apply to internet services. The VPPA decision could establish precedent that older consumer protection laws adapt to modern technology through straightforward statutory interpretation rather than requiring new legislation.
The appeals court's decision will likely reach the Supreme Court eventually. Until then, internet companies face substantial litigation risk and pressure to settle class actions under the VPPA.