Also known as: false light depiction · false light portrayal · false light · false light privacy tort
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A tortious invasion of privacy arising when one gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light. The false light must be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and the actor must have known of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.
Delta Dynamics mailed brochures to thousands of prospects featuring Delilah Duran identified by name next to a description of her as a reformed gambler who overcame addiction through the firm's help. The description drew from confidential intake notes without Duran's consent and portrayed her personal history inaccurately for marketing purposes. Duran suffered embarrassment when colleagues saw the materials.
Doris Duffy published an article accurately describing Dominic Drake's prior arrest based on public records. Drake sued claiming the truthful account placed him in a false light by implying ongoing criminality. The court dismissed the claim because the reporting was substantially true and protected by constitutional standards.
Dover Bank used a photo of Daniel Diaz in a brochure under the caption suggesting he endorsed risky investments. The caption created an impression of financial recklessness that Diaz had never held. Diaz established the publication reached a broad audience and caused him reputational harm.
A television station aired a segment about Dolores Diaz that falsely implied she had fabricated a workplace harassment complaint. The station acted with reckless disregard for the truth after receiving contradictory evidence from Diaz's employer. Diaz proved the broadcast reached the public and caused her emotional distress.
A magazine published photos of David Dawson's family home alongside a story about a play reenacting a hostage incident. The article inaccurately suggested the family had acted heroically during the event. Dawson showed the publication placed the family in an offensive false light before a national audience.
In September 1952, James Hill, his wife, and their five children were held hostage for 19 hours in their home in Whitemarsh, Pennsylvania, by three escaped convicts. The convicts treated the family courteously and released them unharmed. Shortly after the incident, the family moved to Connecticut, and Hill discouraged further publicity. In 1953, Joseph Hayes published the novel The Desperate Hours, which was inspired by the Hill incident but depicted a family suffering violence at the hands of the convicts. The novel was adapted into a Broadway play that opened in 1955. Life magazine published an article in its February 28, 1955, issue titled "True Crime Inspires Tense Play," which described the play as a reenactment of the Hill family's experience and included photographs of actors posing in the former Hill home. The Life article was prepared by entertainment editor Prideaux, who relied on information from Hayes and a photographer but did not verify the extent of fictionalization. James Hill sued Time, Inc., the publisher of Life, in New York state court under sections 50 and 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law. He alleged that the article falsely portrayed the play as a reenactment of his family's experience. At the first trial, a jury awarded Hill $30,000 in compensatory damages and $20,000 in punitive damages. The Appellate Division affirmed the liability finding but ordered a new trial on damages, and the New York Court of Appeals later sustained the compensatory award while reversing the punitive damages. After a second trial limited to compensatory damages, the jury again awarded $30,000. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the constitutional issues raised by the application of the state statute.
View caseA television station aired footage of Duffy Construction's employee performing a unique human cannonball act during a public event. The broadcast occurred without permission and implied the performer endorsed the station. The employee suffered harm from the unauthorized commercial use of his likeness.
Hugo Zacchini performs a "human cannonball" act in which he is shot from a cannon into a net some 200 feet away, with each performance occupying some 15 seconds. In August and September 1972, Zacchini was engaged to perform his act on a regular basis at the Geauga County Fair in Burton, Ohio. He performed in a fenced area, surrounded by grandstands, at the fair grounds, and members of the public attending the fair were not charged a separate admission fee to observe his act. On August 30, a freelance reporter for Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., the operator of a television broadcasting station, attended the fair carrying a small movie camera. Zacchini noticed the reporter and asked him not to film the performance, and the reporter did not do so on that day. On the instructions of the producer of the station's daily newscast, the reporter returned the following day and videotaped the entire act. This film clip, approximately 15 seconds in length, was shown on the 11 o'clock news program that night, together with favorable commentary. Zacchini then brought this action for damages against Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. He alleged that the station showed and commercialized the film of his act without his consent. Such conduct was an unlawful appropriation of his professional property. The trial court granted summary judgment for the broadcaster. The Court of Appeals of Ohio reversed. The Supreme Court of Ohio gave judgment for the broadcaster. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseA plaintiff must show that the defendant gave publicity to a matter placing the plaintiff in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and that the defendant acted with knowledge of or reckless disregard for the falsity.
Supporting sources
Truth is a defense because the tort requires falsity. Where the publicized matter is substantially true or protected opinion, the claim fails under constitutional standards.
Supporting sources
False light claims are subject to the same First Amendment limitations as defamation. Plaintiffs must prove falsity and actual malice when the matter involves public interest, even for private plaintiffs in some jurisdictions.
Supporting sources
False light protects against offensive false impressions rather than reputational harm from defamatory statements. Truth defeats both, but false light focuses on the emotional or dignitary injury from the false portrayal itself.
Supporting sources
…created a cause of action for invasion of privacy by giving publicity to matters concerning an individual that placed him in a false light before the public. A jury awarded Hill compensatory and punitive damages; the Appellate Division affirmed but the New York Court of Appeals reversed the punitive damages award while…