SCOTUS Hears Salazar Video Privacy Case; Judge Extends CNN Politico White House Access; Apple-OpenAI Trade Secret Hearing: Oct 14

Better Call Claude Briefing — Oct 14, 2026

The Supreme Court hears argument today on whether a 1988 video-rental privacy law reaches newsletter subscribers and website tracking pixels, a Trump-appointed D.C. judge issued a preliminary injunction keeping CNN, MS NOW, and Politico hard-pass holders inside the White House while their suit proceeds, and Apple and OpenAI square off in San Jose over a trade-secret injunction and a motion to dismiss. General news roundup only — not legal advice.

SCOTUS hears Salazar v. Paramount on the Video Privacy Protection Act in the internet age

The Supreme Court on Wednesday, October 14, hears one hour of argument in Salazar v. Paramount Global (No. 25-459), asking how the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 — the “Bork bill” passed after a journalist published Judge Robert Bork’s video-rental list — applies when a sports-newsletter subscriber says a media company shared his video-viewing data with Facebook through a tracking pixel. Michael Salazar subscribed to a free 247Sports.com email newsletter from Paramount-owned sites, watched videos on the site while logged into Facebook, and sued in Nashville claiming Paramount knowingly disclosed his Facebook ID and viewing history without consent, seeking up to $2,500 in statutory damages per violation plus class relief. U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson dismissed the case, holding that a VPPA “consumer” must subscribe to goods or services “in the nature of audio-visual content,” and a divided Sixth Circuit affirmed, reading “goods or services from a video tape service provider” as limited to audiovisual offerings. Salazar tells the Court the statute’s text covers any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video provider, with no audiovisual limiter on that phrase; Paramount, represented by Paul Clement, warns that a broad reading would turn a VHS-era rental statute into an unworkable internet-privacy regime with harsh class-action exposure for ordinary analytics. Lower courts are split: the Sixth and D.C. Circuits have favored the narrower view, while the Second and Seventh have treated newsletter subscribers as VPPA consumers. The ruling will shape who can sue over pixel and ad-tech disclosures of video watches, and how news and retail sites that mix free newsletters with embedded video manage third-party tracking.

Sources: SCOTUSblog preview, DNYuz / wire day-of coverage, Cornell LII case bulletin, SCOTUSblog case page

Judge Kelly extends White House access block for CNN, MS NOW, and Politico

U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly of the District of Columbia, a first-term Trump appointee, on Tuesday, October 13, granted CNN, MS NOW, and Politico a preliminary injunction that keeps their reporters’ White House hard passes restored while CNN v. Trump (No. 26-3287) proceeds. The 26-page memorandum opinion finds the outlets likely to succeed not only on Fifth Amendment due process — the ground for Kelly’s earlier temporary restraining order — but also on First Amendment retaliation and viewpoint-discrimination claims. Kelly wrote that President Trump “likely banned Plaintiffs from the White House because he believes that their reporting is generally inaccurate and biased against him,” citing the September 18 Truth Social ban announcement, follow-up remarks about “negative” and “fake” coverage, and a Time magazine interview complaining about “bad story after bad story.” He rejected the Justice Department’s national-security justification as unsupported on the record, finding “practically nothing national security-related” tied to the revocation decision and noting that post-ban White House letters and a Defense press secretary declaration did not show the President would have barred the outlets anyway. Kelly emphasized Circuit precedent (Sherrill, Karem) requiring fair notice of conduct and sanctions before hard-pass revocation, and held that the open-ended campus ban would deter a reporter of ordinary firmness. The order preserves press-area access; it does not require Oval Office or Air Force One pool access. Counsel for the outlets, Ted Boutrous, called the ban an admitted effort to punish disfavored coverage; the White House said it will appeal. The ruling matters because it converts a short TRO into longer-term relief grounded expressly in the First Amendment as well as due process, and sets up an appeal on how far a president may exclude credentialed White House reporters for the content of their reporting.

Sources: CBS News, CNN, NBC News, AP, RCFP opinion PDF (Oct. 13)

Apple and OpenAI face off in San Jose over trade secrets and a bid to dismiss

Also on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila in San Jose hears the first major motions hearing in Apple Inc. v. Liu, No. 5:26-cv-07078 (N.D. Cal.): Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction barring OpenAI and named former Apple employees from using or acquiring alleged Apple trade secrets, and OpenAI’s motion to dismiss the suit. Apple sued in July, accusing OpenAI, former Apple hardware chief Tang Yew Tan, and former iPhone engineer Chang Liu of conspiring to extract confidential information on product design, manufacturing, components, testing, and supply chain — and of using job interviews as “show and tell” sessions for prototypes — to advance OpenAI’s consumer-hardware push. OpenAI denies the claims, says Apple has not identified specific secrets (only broad hardware categories), and argues the case exposes Apple’s own security and offboarding gaps, including continued post-departure contact with Liu over personal iCloud materials; in an October filing OpenAI said it is “developing a new family of devices designed for the AI era” and has “no need or desire for Apple’s trade secrets.” On Tuesday, Davila ordered limited expedited discovery, including forensic device images, summaries of certain Apple-candidate interviews, and LINE messages between Liu and former Apple engineer Yu-Ting Peng, and directed Liu, Peng, and Tan to sit for depositions, citing a risk that forensic evidence could be destroyed. The hearing lands amid a fraying 2024 ChatGPT–Apple software partnership and OpenAI’s reported push toward a large valuation and public markets. Whatever Davila decides on the injunction and dismissal thresholds will shape early discovery leverage and whether Apple can freeze alleged use of its secrets while the hardware race proceeds.

Sources: Bloomberg Law, Quartz, CourtListener RECAP order (expedited discovery)

---

This Briefing is general news for Better Call Claude readers. It is not legal advice, and nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. Check primary sources and talk to a licensed lawyer about your situation.