Findings · 10 of 16

Law follows geography, not conduct

What it is

Identical conduct produces completely different consumer outcomes depending on the defendant's category and the plaintiff's state.

Why it matters

Your rights are largely an accident of where you live and how a 1988 or 2008 statute happened to define the business that harmed you. This is the single most useful thing to explain to a general audience.

Companies and rows it touches

VPPA: movie theatres held EXEMPT as not 'video tape service providers' (e.g., AMC, D. Kan. July 2025; the Eighth Circuit affirmed a similar ruling for another chain in Dec. 2025), while streaming services are covered - same tracking, different statute outcome (Regal- and Fandango-specific rulings not confirmed). Illinois BIPA lets individuals sue without proving harm; Texas CUBI reserves suit to the Attorney General alone. Meta began using AI-chat interactions to personalize ads from Dec. 16, 2025 'in most regions' with no dedicated opt-out described; reports that the EU, UK and South Korea are excluded were not confirmed against Meta's announcement. ALSO: Paramount is the sharpest single case — the Sixth Circuit AFFIRMED dismissal of a VPPA claim against it (Salazar, April 2025) while the Second Circuit went the other way about six months earlier in the NBA case (Oct 2024), (a separate SDNY action, Cho v. Paramount Global, No. 1:24-cv-08312, filed in late 2024, alleges Paramount+ shared viewing data with Meta and TikTok; Paramount moved to dismiss in Jan. 2025, and current status was not confirmed). The circuit split over who counts as a 'consumer' under the 1988 statute meant the same company, doing the same thing, could win in one federal circuit and lose in another; the Supreme Court granted review in Salazar v. Paramount Global on Jan. 26, 2026 (No. 25-459), with argument set for October 2026.

Where to look

Home Security & Entertainment (AMC, Regal, Fandango); Productivity & Comms Apps (Google biometric rows); LLM Providers (Meta AI)