Editing Video Privacy Protection Act (section)

==Computer-based VPPA litigation==

Toward the end of the 2010's and beginning of the 2020's, the 1988 law experienced a resurgence in consumer class action lawsuits. The numerous lawsuits filed as part of this trend alleged that companies violated the VPPA by collecting and disclosing consumers' video viewing history through their websites, [[mobile apps]], and other [[smart devices]]. 

While the language of the VPPA focuses on "video tape service providers," consumers have argued that the law also protects the privacy of their personal information that is collected while they watch audiovisual content online. [[HTTP cookie|Cookies]] and other website behavior [[web beacons|tracking technologies]] commonly found on popular websites allow the website operators to connect visitors' browsers with third parties who collect information from their website visit. This information can be shared with the third parties for various purposes including website functionality, language preferences and other personalization, and third party advertising.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Kesan |first1=Jey |last2=Shah |first2=Rajiv |ssrn=597543 |title=Deconstructing Code |date=2018-08-19 |journal=Yale Journal of Law and Technology |volume=6 |pages=277–389}}</ref> The recent resurgence of VPPA lawsuits is premised on the idea that data collected through the various tracking technologies may include personal information protected by the VPPA. Consumer plaintiffs assert that if that information is shared with third parties for analytics, advertising, or any other purpose that falls outside the exceptions in the VPPA, it is unlawful.
 	
Prior to 2007, VPPA had not been cited by privacy attorneys as a cause of action involving electronic [[computing device]]s. Early lawsuits raising the VPPA in the context of data shared through the internet included a 2008 lawsuit against Facebook and thirty-three companies, including [[Blockbuster LLC|Blockbuster]], [[Zappos]], and [[Overstock.com]], as well as the ''[[Lane v. Facebook, Inc.]]'' class action lawsuit, involving alleged [[privacy violations]] caused by the [[Facebook Beacon]] program.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.computerworld.com/article/2536627/blockbuster-sued-over-facebook-beacon-information-sharing.html |title=Blockbuster sued over Facebook Beacon information sharing |work=[[Computerworld]] |date=April 18, 2008 |first=Jaikumar |last=Vijayan}}</ref><ref name=LaneAppeal>{{cite court |litigants=Lane v. Facebook, Inc. |litigants-force-plain= |vol=696 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=811 |pinpoint= |court=9th Cir. |date=2012 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/808885/ginger-mccall-v-facebook-inc/ |quote= |postscript= }}</ref>

The [[online advertising]] industry, in association with analytic companies, increasingly used video-based ads and at the same time gathered data from webpages and smart TV's showing digital video. By tracking web traffic online, consumers and their attorneys gather evidence of the data being collected by third parties through cookies and other tracking technologies when a person visits a website. Consumers use that traffic analysis to determine whether their protected personal information has been shared with third parties when they visited a particular website. For example, attorneys use software applications to log [[HTTPS|HTTP/HTTPS]] traffic between a computer's web browser and the Internet to produce evidence of tracking activities. This approach led to a $9.5 million settlement in the ''[[Lane v. Facebook, Inc.]]'' case.<ref name=LaneAppeal/><ref>{{cite_web|title=Supreme Court Won’t Review Facebook Beacon Class Action Settlement|author=Sarah Mirando|date=2013-11-04|url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/supreme-court-won-t-review-facebook-beacon-class-action-settlement/|language=en}}</ref>

VPPA rulings rarely survive appeal, so the ''Pharmatrak'' case (2003) remains the most significant precedent.<ref>{{cite web|first1=Eric|last1=Goldman|access-date=2025-05-06|title=Meta Pixels Case Dismissed by Second Circuit-Solomon v. Triller|url=https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2025/05/meta-pixels-case-dismissed-by-second-circuit-solomon-v-triller.htm|date=2025-05-05|website=Technology & Marketing Law Blog}}</ref>