Will SCOTUS count subscribers to a video provider’s non-video offerings as VPPA consumers?

If the Supreme Court, in Salazar v. Paramount Global, rules the VPPA’s definition of “consumer” includes subscribers to any goods or services from a video tape service provider, not only its audiovisual goods or services, then the market resolves to Yes. The Payout Criterion for the Contract encompasses the Expiration Values that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled, in Salazar v. Paramount Global, that the phrase “goods or services from a video tape service provider” in the Video Privacy Protection Act’s definition of “consumer” refers to all of that provider’s goods or services and is not limited to its audiovisual goods or services, after Issuance and before August 1, 2028. A ruling that the phrase covers only audiovisual goods or services resolves to No. If the case is dismissed, found improvidently granted, or remanded without resolving this interpretive question on the merits, the market resolves to No; a remand accompanying the qualifying merits holding resolves to Yes.