Media News Daily: Top Stories for 10/15/2026

Supreme Court Weighs 1988 Video Privacy Law in Digital Tracking Case

The Supreme Court is considering whether the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act applies to people who subscribe to any product offered by a video provider or only to subscribers of audiovisual services. The case stems from a lawsuit Michael Salazar filed against Paramount after subscribing to a 247Sports newsletter and alleging that a Facebook tracking pixel shared information about his video viewing without consent. Lower courts ruled that the newsletter subscription did not make him a protected “consumer” under the statute. Salazar argues that the law’s text supports a broader interpretation, while Paramount warns that approach could turn a video-rental privacy statute into a sweeping internet privacy law. A decision is expected by next summer. (Read More) (The Hill Rating)

Supreme Court Gives FCC Win in Campaign Ad Rate Fight

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 to block a lower-court order requiring the Federal Communications Commission to quickly decide a dispute over favorable political advertising rates. The underlying rule would allow political parties and joint fundraising committees to seek the same reduced television ad rates typically available to candidates. Democratic congressional candidates challenged the rule, while Republicans have supported it. The justices said the Fourth Circuit improperly forced the FCC to act on an expedited timetable when federal law does not require the agency to resolve such applications within a specific period. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. (Read More) (Washington Examiner Rating)

Former WOOD-TV Managers Win Millions in Nexstar Case

A federal jury awarded former WOOD-TV news managers Stanton Tang and Amy Fox millions of dollars after finding that Nexstar Media placed them in a false light following controversy over a 2023 newsroom memo about Pride coverage. The jury rejected their defamation claims but found that Nexstar’s statements created a false and highly offensive implication about the pair. Tang received $1.29 million in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages, while Fox received $1.8 million in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. Both also received additional damages under Michigan’s Employee Right-to-Know Act over disclosures concerning disciplinary action. (Read More) (Reason Rating)