Federal Courts Split on VPPA Violations from Meta Pixel Video Tracking

Published
Score
9

Why it matters

Two recent federal court decisions—Goodman v. Hillsdale College (Western District of Michigan) and Berryman v. Reading International (Southern District of New York)—reached opposing conclusions on March 2026 about whether websites using Meta Pixel violate the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by sharing video-viewing data with Meta, including user identifiers like Facebook IDs tied to watched videos[1]. In Goodman, the court allowed the claim to proceed, finding potential VPPA exposure for entities like nonprofits using such trackers; the case settled soon after[1]. Conversely, Berryman dismissed the claim, ruling the transmitted data (e.g., encoded Facebook IDs and video info) did not qualify as "personally identifiable information" (PII) discernible by an ordinary person without technical expertise[1].

This split builds on a broader judicial divide in VPPA litigation over Meta Pixel and similar trackers. Earlier, the Second Circuit affirmed dismissals in cases like Solomon v. Flipps Media and Hughes v. NFL (2025), holding encoded data strings do not constitute PII under VPPA's "ordinary person" test, effectively limiting claims in that circuit[2][3][5]. However, courts in Michigan (Goodman) and California have denied dismissals on similar facts, expanding exposure despite the same standard[1][3][4]. Involved parties include defendants like Hillsdale College, Reading International, Meta (via Pixel), and plaintiffs alleging unlawful disclosure of viewing history; no specific agencies or legislation beyond VPPA (1988 federal law originally targeting video rental privacy post-Supreme Court leak)[1][2].

Timeline: VPPA claims surged with trackers like Meta Pixel post-2020; Second Circuit narrowed in 2025[2]; split deepened with California/Michigan allowances into late 2025, culminating in Goodman and Berryman on or before March 12, 2026[1][3]. Newsworthy now due to forum-dependent liability risks for video-hosting companies, amid pending Supreme Court review in Salazar v. Paramount Global on VPPA's "consumer" definition, heightening uncertainty[1][5].

Sources

mail

Get notified about new Privacy developments

Primary sources. No fluff. Straight to your inbox.

See more entries tagged Privacy.