When Old Laws Meet New Tech: What a Chess Website VPPA Case Means for Modern Businesses

** Attorney Advertisement**

Written by: Juliana Cipolla

The Intrigue

A recent ruling from a federal judge in Illinois has raised eyebrows in the privacy and data security world. In Krueger v. Chess.com, LLC, the court refused to dismiss a class action lawsuit under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), in which the plaintiff alleged that Chess.com illegally disclosed information about videos users watched on its platform by sharing it with third parties without consent.[1]

At first glance, this may sound like a niche dispute involving a popular chess website and its video tutorials. However, for businesses across many diverse industries, the ruling is a signal of something much bigger: courts are breathing new life into an old privacy statute, and it may reshape how companies handle video content, online tracking, and consumer data.

The VPPA: A Law Born in the VHS Era

To understand why this case matters, it helps to step back in time. The Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. § 2710) was passed after the rental history of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork was published during his confirmation hearings.[2] Although his movie selections were benign, the incident sparked outrage that personal viewing habits could be exposed without consent.

The VPPA was designed to prevent that kind of intrusion. At its core, the law prohibits a “video tape service provider” from knowingly disclosing information that identifies a person and the videos they have viewed. Violations allow for statutory damages of $2,500 per person, plus attorney’s fees.[3]

Originally, lawmakers had envisioned neighborhood video rental shops and cable providers as the targets. But in today’s digital environment, the definition of “video service provider” has expanded. Websites, apps, and platforms that stream or host videos are increasingly being pulled into the VPPA’s orbit.

How Chess.com Landed in Court

Chess.com is best known for its online chess platform and community. But like many modern websites, it also hosts instructional and entertainment videos for its users.

In Krueger, supra, the plaintiff alleged that Chess.com disclosed information about his video viewing history to third parties through tracking technologies.[4] While Judge Bork’s viewing information was published in what is now largely considered to be an antiquated and obsolete physical newspaper,

Chess.com allegedly shared metadata with advertisers and analytics providers — data that, when combined with identifiers, could reveal what a specific user watched.

Chess.com argued the VPPA did not apply and moved to get the case dismissed. The Illinois federal judge disagreed and allowed the case to proceed.[5] That decision is significant because it suggests courts are willing to let VPPA claims move forward even when the “videos” are online tutorials rather than movie rentals, and even when the disclosures happen quietly through digital tracking tools rather than a massive public leak.

Why This Case Signals a Broader Trend

This ruling is not just about one chess website. It highlights a broader expansion of the VPPA into the digital economy. Three important trends stand out:

1. Expanding the Definition of “Video Provider”

• Originally, the VPPA targeted traditional video rental and cable companies.
• Now, courts are entertaining the idea that any website or app that offers video content could be a “video tape service provider.”[6]
• This broader definition potentially encompasses news sites, e-learning platforms, fitness apps, and even retailers with embedded product videos.

2. Data Sharing Practices Under Scrutiny

• The central issue isn’t just video content — it’s the data ecosystems that surround it.
• Companies often use pixels, cookies, and software development kits (SDKs) to track user activity and potentially share it with marketing partners.[7]
• If these tracking tools collect information about what videos users watch, they could expose the company to VPPA claims.

3. Old Statutes, New Life

• The VPPA joins other older laws, like the federal Wiretap Act and various state wiretapping statutes, all of which plaintiffs’ lawyers are repurposing to challenge current digital data practices.[8]
• Even if these cases are eventually narrowed or dismissed, the litigation costs and settlement risks are real and significant.

What This Means for Modern Companies

The Chess.com ruling should serve as a wake-up call. Many companies may not think of themselves as “video businesses,” but if they host or embed video content, they could be within the VPPA’s reach. Here’s what organizations should keep in mind:

1. Audit Your Video Content and Tracking Tools

• Identify where your website or app hosts videos — from training modules to marketing reels.
• Review what tracking technologies are running on those pages (e.g., pixels, cookies, third-party embeds).

2. Evaluate Data Sharing Agreements

• If video viewing data is being shared with vendors, determine whether the viewing data identifies the user by being linked to the user account directly, or if it can be linked via device IDs or cookies.
• Make sure contracts require vendors to comply with all applicable privacy laws, including the VPPA.

3. Update Privacy Notices and Other Relevant Disclosures

• Transparency is critical. Consumers, regulators, — and courts — expect to see clear disclosures about what data is collected and how it is shared.[9]
• Ensure your privacy notice specifically addresses your collection and sharing of user video viewing data, if applicable.

4. Watch for Litigation Hotspots

• Plaintiffs’ lawyers are increasingly targeting companies that collect extensive user data or host online video content, particularly under the Video Privacy Protection Act and related privacy statutes.[10]
• Industries like media, e-learning, fitness, and gaming are particularly vulnerable.

5. Stay Ahead of Compliance

• The VPPA may feel out of date, but regulators and courts are showing a willingness to apply it to modern contexts.
• A proactive compliance program — guided by both legal and technical expertise — is the best defense against costly class actions.

Final Thoughts

The Chess.com case is a reminder that in law, yesterday’s rules often govern today’s technology. Statutes written for VHS tapes can resurface decades later to shape the rules of the digital economy.

For businesses, the lesson is clear: do not underestimate the reach and applicability of older privacy laws. As courts expand the VPPA, companies of all sizes need to take a hard look at how they collect, use, and share data related to video content.

At The Beckage Firm, we monitor these developments closely because they offer a preview of where privacy litigation is heading. By understanding not just what laws say, but how they are applied in real world cases, we help clients reduce risk and stay ahead of evolving compliance challenges.

 

[1] Allison Grande, Chess Website Can’t Dodge Suit Over Video Data-Sharing, Law 360 (September 29, 2025), Chess Website Can’t Dodge Suit Over Video Data-Sharing – Law360.

[2] The Video Privacy  Protection Act as a Model Intellectual Privacy Statute, Harvard Law Review (April, 2018), The Video Privacy Protection Act as a Model Intellectual Privacy Statute – Harvard Law Review.

[3] Legal Information Institute, 18 U.S. Code § 2710 – Wrongful Disclosure of Video Tape Rental or Sale Records, Cornell Law School, 18 U.S. Code § 2710 – Wrongful disclosure of video tape rental or sale records | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute.

[4] Krueger v. Chess.com, LLC, No. 1:2024cv05722 – Document 38 (N.D. Ill. 2025), Justia U.S. Law, Krueger v. Chess.com, LLC, No. 1:2024cv05722 – Document 38 (N.D. Ill. 2025) :: Justia

[5] Allison Grande, Chess Website Can’t Dodge Suit Over Video Data-Sharing, Law 360 (September 29, 2025), Chess Website Can’t Dodge Suit Over Video Data-Sharing – Law360

[6] The Video Privacy  Protection Act as a Model Intellectual Privacy Statute, Harvard Law Review (April, 2018), The Video Privacy Protection Act as a Model Intellectual Privacy Statute – Harvard Law Review

[7] The FTC Office of Technology, Lurking Beneath the Surface: Hidden Impacts of Pixel Tracking, Federal Trade Commission (March 16, 2023), Lurking Beneath the Surface: Hidden Impacts of Pixel Tracking | Federal Trade Commission.

[8] Kayla Bushey, US Data Privacy Litigation Website Tracking Litigation, IAPP (March 2025), US Data Privacy Litigation: Website tracking litigation.

[9] FTC Staff, A Look Behind the Screens: Examining the Data Practices of Social Media and Video Streaming Services, Federal Trade Commission (September 2024), A Look Behind the Screens: Examining the Data Practices of Social Media and Video Streaming Services | Federal Trade Commission.

[10] Lothar Determann, Andrew Folks, Opting In-n-Out: Five Key Analyses for Adtech Privacy Law Compliance, IAPP (February 9, 2024), Opting In-n-Out: Five key analyses for adtech privacy law compliance | IAPP.