Run a free scan

Gardner v. Me-TV: giving an email and zip code for free features can make a viewer a VPPA consumer

If your free video site asks for an email address in return for reminders, favourites or comments, treat those users as VPPA "consumers" in the Seventh Circuit. Judge Easterbrook’s opinion says data is payment, and the thing signed up for does not have to be video.

US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Video Privacy Protection Act · Published opinion, 28 March 2025

The problem

MeTV streams classic television for free and earns money from ads. People can register with an email address and zip code to follow shows, get reminders and post comments. The plaintiffs did that, then watched MeTV in a browser where they were signed into Facebook. They alleged that MeTV "embeds in the videos a 'Meta pixel'" that let Facebook know what they watched, without their consent (slip op. at 3).

Case record

Court
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, on appeal from the Northern District of Illinois
Case number
No. 24-1290; district court No. 1:22-cv-05963
Parties
David Vance Gardner and Gary Merchant v. Me-TV National Limited Partnership
Counsel
Plaintiffs: Milberg, Girard Sharp, Bursor & Fisher ([Dkt. 78](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.422983/gov.uscourts.ilnd.422983.78.0.pdf)). Defendant: not stated in the cited record
Laws
Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710
Stage
Reversed and remanded 28 March 2025; all claims voluntarily dismissed with prejudice 2 October 2025
Amount
None in the record
Source review
17 October 2026

What was alleged

What was alleged
ClaimWhat the law requiresFacts allegedResult
VPPA, § 2710(b)(1)Knowing disclosure of a "consumer's" personally identifiable information by a video tape service provider; consumer means "any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider"Plaintiffs "signed up" for MeTV with email and zip code and watched while signed into Facebook; the Pixel "encodes the name of each video that they stream" ([slip op. at 3, 5](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca7-24-01290/pdf/USCOURTS-ca7-24-01290-0.pdf))Dismissed twice below; reversed on appeal; later dismissed with prejudice by the plaintiffs

Technical issue

  • Tools or vendors: the Meta Pixel.
  • Where: the metv.com video player. Anyone can watch without registering; the site only needs the viewer’s IP address to deliver the stream (slip op. at 2).
  • What data: the name of each streamed video, linkable to the viewer’s Facebook ID, which "can be derived when someone already signed into Facebook uses the same browser to access MeTV" (slip op. at 3, 5).
  • When: on viewing, with no consent from the plaintiffs alleged.
  • How it came to light: the complaint. The opinion does not describe a capture or an expert.

Inth’s technical interpretation: the registration form and the Pixel are separate features built for different reasons: personalisation and ad measurement. The legal exposure comes from running both on one domain. The account gives the user "consumer" status and the Pixel supplies the disclosure. Registration data (email, zip code) also tends to flow into ad tools through advanced matching, which strengthens the identity half of the claim.

Illustrative pattern, not the defendant’s code.

// Bad: registered users get advanced matching on every page, including the player
fbq('init', PIXEL_ID, { em: sha256(user.email), zp: sha256(user.zip) });
fbq('track', 'PageView');
// Fixed: no advanced matching, and no Pixel on player routes without consent.
// Generic consent check, not a specific library API.
if (!isPlayerRoute(location.pathname) && consent.has('marketing')) {
  fbq('init', PIXEL_ID);
  fbq('track', 'PageView');
}

Timeline

Timeline
DateEvent
28 October 2022Complaint filed in the Northern District of Illinois ([docket](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65645586/gardner-v-metv/))
2023First complaint dismissed with leave to amend, 681 F. Supp. 3d 864 ([slip op. at 4](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca7-24-01290/pdf/USCOURTS-ca7-24-01290-0.pdf))
15 February 2024Amended complaint dismissed
13 September 2024Argued in the Seventh Circuit
28 March 2025Reversed and remanded ([opinion](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca7-24-01290/pdf/USCOURTS-ca7-24-01290-0.pdf))
2 October 2025Plaintiffs dismiss all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) ([Dkt. 78](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.422983/gov.uscourts.ilnd.422983.78.0.pdf))

Outcome

The Seventh Circuit held that registering with personal data is a subscription: "In an Information Age, data can be worth more than money. If paying $1 a year to use MeTV would produce a subscription, then providing $1 worth of information must do so too" (slip op. at 4).

It then held the subscription need not be to video: "Any purchase or subscription from a 'video tape service provider' satisfies the definition of 'consumer', even if the thing purchased is clothing or the thing subscribed to is a newsletter" (slip op. at 5–6). MeTV’s site sells Flintstones sweatshirts and Scooby Doo mugs; buying one would make a purchaser a consumer. The court called the case "almost identical to Salazar" and agreed with the Second Circuit.

The court did not decide whether downloading an app without giving personal data makes someone a subscriber, noting the First and Eleventh Circuits disagree on that (slip op. at 6). It did not address PII.

The opinion binds federal courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. On remand, after mediation status reports, the plaintiffs dismissed with prejudice. The notice states no terms and no class was certified (Dkt. 78).

What it cost

What it cost
ItemAmount
Damages, fund or settlementNot stated in the cited record
Statutory exposure claimedUSD 2,500 liquidated damages per class member ([§ 2710(c)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2710))
FeesNot stated in the cited record

Why it matters

  • Gardner put a second circuit on the broad side six days before the Sixth Circuit took the narrow view in Salazar v. Paramount; the D.C. Circuit joined the narrow side in Pileggi in August 2025. The Supreme Court heard Paramount on 14 October 2026.
  • The Seventh Circuit has not adopted a PII test for Pixel cases. The Second Circuit’s ordinary-person test in Solomon v. Flipps is not binding there.
  • Free sites are not outside the statute. MeTV charges nothing; registration data was enough.
  • Related: Salazar v. NBA, VPPA, Identifying video-viewing disclosures.

How Inth catches this

  • Code audit: flags a pull request that adds the Meta Pixel or advanced matching (em, zp) on routes that render a player, and traces registration fields from the sign-up form into Pixel parameters.
  • Website audit: records requests to facebook.com/tr from player pages with the page, time, region and consent state.
  • Consent banner: under an opt-in policy the Meta Pixel helper waits for the visitor’s choice. Illinois is not in Inth’s listed opt-in regions, so holding the Pixel there is a policy you configure.
  • Evidence: consent records with choice, country and policy.

Inth cannot tell you whether your registration flow makes users "subscribers"; that is a legal reading of your sign-up terms.

Checks for your own systems

In the repository

  • Find every place an account, newsletter or reminder sign-up collects email or zip code.
  • Search for fbq('init' with a third argument, ud[ or user_data on player routes.
  • Check whether the video player component imports any ad or analytics helper.

In the browser and network

  • Register a test account, sign into Facebook in the same browser, play a video and capture facebook.com/tr.
  • Look for ud[em], ud[zp], the video title in cd[...] and the slug in dl.
  • Compare a logged-out session.

With the people responsible

  • Ask what users get in return for registering and whether terms describe sharing viewing activity.
  • Confirm whether any merchandise store runs on the same domain as the player.

Sources and limits

Source review: 17 October 2026. This page describes the cited records and procedural stage. It does not audit MeTV’s current systems. Inth wrote the technical checks; they cannot decide which laws apply or prove compliance.