ARTICLE
16 May 2025

Second Circuit Clarifies VPPA Scope For Pixel Tracking Cases

PC
Perkins Coie LLP

Contributor

Perkins Coie is a premier international law firm with over a century of experience, dedicated to addressing the legal and business challenges of tomorrow. Renowned for its deep industry knowledge and client-centric approach, the firm has consistently partnered with trailblazing organizations, from aviation pioneers to artificial intelligence innovators. With 21 offices across the United States, Asia, and Europe, and a global network of partner firms, Perkins Coie provides seamless support to clients wherever they operate.

The firm's vision is to be the trusted advisor to the world’s most innovative companies, delivering strategic, high-value solutions critical to their success. Guided by a one-firm culture, Perkins Coie emphasizes excellence, collaboration, inclusion, innovation, and creativity. The firm is committed to building diverse teams, promoting equal access to justice, and upholding the rule of law, reflecting its core values and enduring dedication to clients, communities, and colleagues.

Last week, the Second Circuit, in Solomon v. Flipps Media, Inc., joined the Third and Ninth Circuits in holding that "personally identifiable information" under the Video Privacy Protection Act is limited to information that would enable an ordinary person, to identify a consumer's video-viewing history.
United States Privacy

Last week, the Second Circuit, in Solomon v. Flipps Media, Inc., joined the Third and Ninth Circuits in holding that "personally identifiable information" (PII) under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) is limited to information that would enable an ordinary person, without specialized knowledge or tools, to identify a consumer's video-viewing history.

In so ruling, the court specifically rejected the First Circuit's broader "reasonable foreseeability" standard, under which courts consider information to qualify as PII if it is reasonably likely to reveal a consumer's video history. By contrast, the "ordinary person" standard now adopted by the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits requires that the information be readily understandable by an "ordinary" person as identifying a consumer's video activity.

Applying this test to the use of the Meta Pixel, the Second Circuit found that the Meta pixel, which transmits a Facebook ID (a numeric string that is associated with Facebook profiles of individuals who have public Facebook accounts) together with computer code that indicates video watched, does not qualify as PII under the VPPA, as an ordinary person would not be able to identify a specific individual or their video history from the information sent to Meta. For businesses using third-party analytics tools like the Meta Pixel, this decision provides greater clarity and some protection, at least in the Second Circuit. However, companies should remain attentive to evolving interpretations in other jurisdictions.

Key Takeaways

  • The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has joined the Third and Ninth Circuits in holding that PII under the (VPPA) is limited to information that would enable an ordinary person, without specialized knowledge or tools, to identify a consumer's video-viewing history.
  • The court further held that a Facebook ID, as transmitted by the Meta Pixel, does not constitute PII under the VPPA.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More