Although Viki was never a major player in the streaming market, its collection of Asian dramas built a devoted following of viewers who trusted the service to provide both their preferred shows and a private setting in which to watch them. As it happens, that expectation was subtly violated.
Meta Pixel, a misleadingly straightforward line of code that is inserted into websites to track user activity and send it back to Facebook’s ad systems, is at the heart of the controversy. The nature of the data—viewing history linked to actual identities, frequently without explicit or affirmative consent—was what made this on Viki especially worrisome.
| Key Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Ade et al. v. Viki Inc., No. 3:23-cv-02161-RFL-LB |
| Law Violated | Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), California Unfair Competition Law |
| Defendant | Viki, Inc. (subsidiary of Rakuten Group) |
| Tracking Tool Used | Meta Pixel (shared viewing data with Facebook) |
| Timeframe Affected | January 12, 2016 – July 30, 2024 |
| Eligible Participants | U.S. residents with both Viki and Facebook accounts during that period |
| Settlement Amount | $8 million total settlement fund |
| Estimated Payout Per Person | $30 to $150, depending on valid claim volume |
| Final Claim Deadline | September 22, 2025 |
| Court Hearing | October 21, 2025 |
| Settlement Site | VikiVPPASettlement.com |
At first glance, the Video Privacy Protection Act may appear out of date. It originated during the VHS rental era and was sparked by a controversy surrounding the selection of films by a Supreme Court nominee. However, its tenets—namely, that people ought to have a say in who is aware of what they watch—are remarkably similar to contemporary data expectations.
Viki was essentially giving Facebook access to personal viewing preferences by embedding Meta Pixel on video content pages. While that may seem insignificant to some, it represents a serious betrayal of trust in the context of digital surveillance. especially when these behaviors can be connected to actual names, profiles, and even hobbies, giving advertisers a comprehensive behavioral profile.
Surprisingly, the business accepted a $8 million settlement without acknowledging guilt. Rather, it promised to cease using the Meta Pixel on video pages unless it was legally permitted to do so. Even though it was a quiet move, it was a sign of a larger reckoning among mid-tier platforms that operate under the shadow of tech giants.
Millions of American users unintentionally participated in this silent data exchange for almost ten years, from early 2016 to mid-2024. They only needed to use both a Facebook and a Viki account during that period in order to qualify for the settlement. It shows how long such tracking went unnoticed or unquestioned, and it’s a very wide span.
Claimants were able to obtain monetary compensation by working with class action lawyers, which, although small (averaging between $30 and $150), felt significant. Screenshots of PayPal deposits and shared relief lit up Reddit threads like r/asiandrama. One user joked that they could pay for an overdue oil change with their $127 payout.
That post made me stop and half smile because it made me realize how infrequently privacy violations leave behind something so concrete.
Digital forums essentially turned into notice boards in the final months before the September 2025 deadline. Users assisted one another in locating links to their Facebook profiles, entering claim IDs, and even anticipating what would happen after a deposit. Compared to the official email notifications, which frequently ended up in spam folders, this peer-to-peer support felt noticeably more effective.
Few media outlets covered the hearing by the time it took place in October. However, the consequences were already being felt. In current lawsuits against other streaming platforms that use comparable embedded tracking tools, attorneys are increasingly citing the VPPA. They gained a win and a blueprint from the Viki case.
By using clever legal framing, the plaintiffs strengthened their case by combining their claims of VPPA violations with California’s Unfair Competition Law. That hybrid approach might soon be adopted as a standard, particularly when suing platforms where it is still extremely difficult to distinguish between intrusion and personalization.
Not only was the law clear in this instance, but users were able to regain some degree of agency. Viewers believed that the “free” in free streaming meant no compromise for years. In this instance, the real currency—their data—was exposed.
Similar cases will probably be tested against developing technologies in the upcoming years, such as cross-device surveillance, biometric trackers, and AI-driven recommendations. However, Viki’s settlement made it abundantly clear that even mid-sized platforms are subject to the legal requirements of control, clarity, and consent.
The lines of code Viki had to remove—code that subtly mapped lives through dramas, romances, and thrillers—may have had a more lasting effect than the payouts or press releases. Perhaps reluctantly, it was removed, leaving behind a cleaner slate and a message to users: what you choose to watch is personal, and that privacy should be safeguarded rather than sold.