Supreme Court Weighs Privacy Law From the Videotape Era of ‘Be Kind, Rewind’; The New York Times, October 14, 2026

Ann E. Marimow , The New York Times; Supreme Court Weighs Privacy Law From the Videotape Era of ‘Be Kind, Rewind’

The justices will consider how the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 applies in the digital age of streaming videos, email newsletters and targeted advertisements.

"When the Senate considered President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Robert H. Bork for a Supreme Court vacancy in 1987, a journalist in Washington obtained and published a list of nearly 150 movies the federal judge and his family had rented from a local video store.

Judge Bork’s nomination was scuttled by the Senate for reasons unrelated to his family’s decision to rent “The Shining” and “Sixteen Candles.” But lawmakers were so upset about the “Bork Tapes” becoming public that they passed legislation the following year to prohibit video stores from disclosing the private information of customers.

Forty years later, the Supreme Court on Wednesday will examine how that privacy law, adopted in the VHS era, applies in the age of streaming, email newsletters and targeted online advertisements.

At the heart of the case is the question of who can sue under the Video Privacy Protection Act, or what it means to be a consumer whose privacy interests are protected by the law. The issue has divided lower courts and has implications for a broad swath of Americans and companies doing business online."

Legitimacy Of 'Customer' In Supreme Court Gay Rights Case Raises Ethical, Legal Flags; AP via Huff Post, July 3, 2023

Alanna Durkin Richer and Colleen Slevin , AP via Huff Post; Legitimacy Of 'Customer' In Supreme Court Gay Rights Case Raises Ethical, Legal Flags

"A Christian graphic artist who the Supreme Court said can refuse to make wedding websites for gay couples pointed during her lawsuit to a request from a man named “Stewart” and his husband-to-be. The twist? Stewart says it never happened.

The revelation has raised questions about how Lorie Smith’s case was allowed to proceed all the way to the nation’s highest court with such an apparent misrepresentation and whether the state of Colorado, which lost the case last week, has any legal recourse...

COULD THE REVELATION IMPACT THE CASE NOW?

It’s highly unlikely. The would-be customer’s request was not the basis for Smith’s original lawsuit, nor was it cited by the high court as the reason for ruling in her favor. Legal standing, or the right to bring a lawsuit, generally requires the person bringing the case to show that they have suffered some sort of harm. But pre-enforcement challenges — like the one Smith brought — are allowed in certain cases if the person can show they face a credible threat of prosecution or sanctions unless they conform to the law.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which reviewed the case before the Supreme Court, found that Smith had standing to sue. That appeals court noted that Colorado had a history of past enforcement “against nearly identical conduct” and that the state decline to promise that it wouldn’t go after Smith if she violated the law."