Consumer Apps · Streaming · Private litigation
Paramount+
Headline
Paramount is the clearest illustration in this tracker that identical conduct produces opposite legal outcomes depending on which court hears it.
Not independently verified. Verification status: Unverified - heuristic first draft. Publish state: draft unverified.
Paramount is the clearest illustration in this tracker that identical conduct produces opposite legal outcomes depending on which court hears it. Cho v. Paramount Global, reported as filed in the Southern District of New York in November 2024, alleges Paramount+ embedded Meta and TikTok pixels that transmitted the titles of videos watched alongside unique user identifiers — with VPPA statutory damages of up to $2,500 per person. Paramount moved to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiff consented to the exact disclosures he complains of. Meanwhile in Salazar v. Paramount Global the Sixth Circuit AFFIRMED dismissal of a materially similar claim in April 2025, while the Second Circuit had gone the other way about six months earlier (October 2024) in Salazar v. NBA — a circuit split over who even counts as a 'consumer' under a 1988 statute written for video rental stores, which the Supreme Court agreed to resolve by granting certiorari in Salazar v. Paramount Global (No. 25-459) on January 26, 2026, with argument expected in the October 2026 Term. Same company, same conduct, different federal circuits, opposite results.
- Severity
- Evidence tierUnassigned
- Claims confirmed
- Last verified2026-08-04
Case status. Private litigation; no sources are on file yet, so no legal tier is assigned.
Primary source. None recorded — Unverified - heuristic first draft.
Terms
Arbitration
Not independently confirmed this pass — standard binding arbitration + class action waiver expected.
Data sharing
Same general VPPA/tracking-pixel litigation risk category as other streaming platforms in this tracker; a separate ClassAction.org note found earlier in this research mentions 'Paramount seeks dismissal of data-sharing class action' as a then-pending matter (current status not verified as of Oct 2026), though specific case details were not independently confirmed this pass.
Fees and billing
Not itemized this pass.
Contacts
Privacy contact. Not recorded.
Legal notice. PUBLIC COMPANY (PSKY). Service route: c/o General Counsel / Corporate Secretary, New York, New York — the corporate address on the SEC Form 10-K cover page is the official address of record. Confirm the exact street address on the current 10-K at sec.gov/edgar, and check the state-of-incorporation registered agent (usually Delaware; most large filers use The Corporation Trust Company or Corporation Service Company) via the Secretary of State business-entity search. A registered agent MUST accept service, which is why it is the reliable channel when a company publishes no privacy address.
Mailing address. Not recorded.
Evidence
No claims have been itemized for this row yet.
No sources are on file for this row yet.
Source vault
Link status: Candidate - not yet fetched
| Document | Last fetch | |
|---|---|---|
| Privacy policy paramountplus.com/privacy-policy/ | Not fetched yet | NO (HTML only) |
| Terms of service paramountplus.com/terms-of-use/ | Not fetched yet | NO (HTML only) |
| Website paramount.com | Not fetched yet | — |
| Primary source No URL recorded Verification: Unverified - heuristic first draft | Not fetched yet | — |
Enforcement
No enforcement actions are linked to this row.
State statute
No comprehensive state privacy statute on file for New York