Website tracking litigation continues to generate high stakes compliance risk, but not all privacy statutes are moving through the courts at the same pace. A notable divergence is emerging between the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) and the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). Where the first is rapidly heading toward definitive interpretation by the United States Supreme Court, the other remains stalled in uncertainty, with litigants still waiting for meaningful appellate guidance.

The U. S. Supreme Court will hear Salazar v. Paramount Global, No. 25-459, to decide who qualifies as a “consumer” under the VPPA after a two-to-two circuit split. The core question is whether the VPPA applies a) narrowly, to subscribers of “audiovisual materials,” or b) broadly, to all company subscribers. For companies that stream video, embed video players, run video-heavy marketing pages, or monetize audiences through targeted advertising, that “consumer” definition can be outcome determinative. If “consumer” is interpreted broadly, VPPA exposure can extend beyond classic video subscription relationships and into ordinary customer or account relationships that happen to interact with video content.

On the other hand, in Fregosa v. Mashable, Inc., No. 3:2025cv01094 (N.D. Cal.  23, 2026)a  dispute involving interpretation of CIPA’s “pen register” provision and whether it applies to website tracking technologies, the District Court denied the plaintiff’s request for an immediate interlocutory appeal. The court concluded there were no “substantial grounds for difference of opinion,” citing “a handful of federal district courts that had adopted similar interpretations,” even though “a growing number of state courts” had taken a conflicting view. The practical result is a familiar one for CIPA defendants and plaintiffs alike: litigation continues to multiply; interpretations continue to diverge; and appellate guidance continues to lag.

When the Supreme Court resolves an issue like who is a “consumer” under VPPA, companies will get a clearer national baseline; even if the decision expands liability, it reduces the cost of uncertainty. With that decision under VPPA, legal teams can align disclosures, consent flows, vendor contracts, and tracking architecture to a clear definition. However, with the ways in which courts are making CIPA decisions, a company can face materially different outcomes depending on which court hears the matter, how the court interprets “pen register,” whether the court decides that website tracking technologies fall under the law’s scope, and whether the court is persuaded by the reasoning of the federal district courts or that of the state courts.

For VPPA defendants, the Supreme Court’s decision will provide clear guidance and strategy for handling these claims, but until appellate courts deliver clearer answers on CIPA, companies should assume that plaintiffs will continue to test aggressive theories and that outcomes will remain uneven.