Research checked 27 September 2026 · Official docket
The competing views
The statute protects certain disclosures of a consumer’s video information. The interpretive question is whether a subscription must itself concern video, or can concern any goods or services supplied by a video provider.
Salazar relies on the breadth of the words goods or services. He argues that Congress did not add an audiovisual limitation to the consumer definition.
Paramount argues that the surrounding definitions and the law’s purpose tie the protected relationship to audiovisual offerings. It says a newsletter subscription alone is insufficient.
Original summaries of submissions, not findings of fact.
Procedural history
- 3 April 2025
Sixth Circuit decision
- 26 January 2026
Supreme Court grants review
- 17 April / 23 June 2026
Parties file merits briefs
- 14 October 2026
Oral argument scheduled
Research & materials
Official case docket (opens in new tab)Questions presented (opens in new tab)Petitioners’ filing (opens in new tab)Respondents’ filing (opens in new tab)Court links open official materials; scheduled arguments are not transcripts.
Case updates
Research and argument schedule checked
The docket records argument scheduled for 14 October 2026. This is a dated research update, not a live feed.
Update source (opens in new tab)Oral argument scheduled
The official docket schedules oral argument for 2026-10-14. Dates may change. Docket entry dated 2026-08-04; checked 2026-09-26.
Update source (opens in new tab)