In a recent decision from the Western District of Texas, the court denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) arising from the use of Meta Pixel on an online training provider’s website. The plaintiff claims that Meta Pixel captured and disclosed private information about video purchases to Meta without user consent.
Standing and Injury
The defendant challenged the plaintiff’s standing, arguing that the information disclosed—titles of purchased training videos—was not private, as the plaintiff’s licensure and continuing education requirements are public. The court disagreed, finding that while licensure is public, the specific videos purchased and their content are not necessarily public information. The court held that the alleged disclosure of private information constitutes a concrete injury, satisfying Article III standing requirements.
Definition of Video Tape Service Provider
A central question was whether the defendant, an online provider of mortgage training videos, qualifies as a “video tape service provider” under the VPPA. The court found that the business’s sale and delivery of prerecorded video materials meets the statutory definition, even if the primary business purpose is education rather than video distribution.
Personally Identifiable Information
The VPPA prohibits the knowing disclosure of “personally identifiable information” (PII) relating to video consumption. The court considered whether a Facebook ID (FID) combined with a video URL constitutes PII. Despite a circuit split on the applicable standard, the court found that, at the pleading stage, the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that this combination identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials.
Knowing Disclosure
The defendant argued it did not knowingly disclose PII, as it could not know which users had FIDs or Facebook cookies enabled. The court found that the intentional installation of Meta Pixel for the purpose of capturing and reporting user data to Meta plausibly constitutes knowing disclosure under the VPPA.
Damages Requirement
The defendant asserted that the plaintiff must plead actual damages to state a VPPA claim. The court rejected this argument, holding that the statute does not require actual damages to be alleged at the pleading stage; statutory liquidated damages are available.
Constitutionality of the VPPA
The defendant challenged the VPPA’s constitutionality under the First Amendment, arguing that it imposes speaker- and content-based restrictions. The court declined to dismiss on this basis, noting that other courts have upheld the statute and that a facial constitutional challenge would require a more developed factual record.
KAREN COCHENOUR v. 360TRAINING.COM , INC., D/B/A MORTGAGE EDUCATORS AND COMPLIANCE, INC., No. 1:25-CV-7-RP, 2025 WL 3251719 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 3, 2025).
