Also known as: false light · false-light theory · false light privacy · false light tort
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A privacy tort that imposes liability on one who 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. The actor must have acted with knowledge of or reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.
An entertainment network aired a segment on celebrity drug relapses and used a still image of Leo stepping out of a rehab facility from an unrelated documentary. The narration and graphics suggested that Leo was secretly battling addiction even though he has never used drugs. Leo sues the network for invasion of privacy.
A news outlet published an article about local business practices that included accurate statements about Felix Franco's company. Franco claims the article placed him in a false light by implying wrongdoing. The court dismisses the claim because the reporting was substantially true.
A retail chain created a loss-prevention video using security footage of Lena during an ordinary shift. The narrator stated the footage showed a member of an internal shoplifting ring and posted the video on the company's public YouTube channel. Lena sues for false light invasion of privacy.
Northern Fiber displayed Dale's full name, city of residence, and a screenshot of his call log on public billboards as part of an advertising campaign. The log revealed repeated late-night calls to a therapist's office. Dale sues the company for invasion of privacy.
A magazine published an article describing a play as a reenactment of a hostage incident involving the Hill family and used photographs of actors in the former family home. The article placed the family in a false light by inaccurately portraying their conduct during the event. The family sues under a state privacy statute.
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.
A broadcasting company filmed and aired Zacchini's entire human cannonball act without consent during a county fair performance. The broadcast placed Zacchini before the public in a manner that appropriated his performance value. Zacchini sues for invasion of privacy.
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.
A false light claim requires publicity of a matter concerning the plaintiff that places the plaintiff before the public in a false light highly offensive to a reasonable person. The defendant must have acted with knowledge of or reckless disregard as to the falsity and the false light created.
Supporting sources
…damages award while sustaining the compensatory award. Held: The First and Fourteenth Amendments require that a plaintiff in a false light privacy action must prove that the defendant published the report with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth. Pp. 377-397. (a) The New York Times rule, which conditions…
…383 (1960), both of which divided privacy into four distinct branches. The Court was aware that it was adjudicating a "false light
…district court against Malcolm, The New Yorker, and Knopf. Masson contended that the defendants libeled him and placed him in a false light in violation of Cal.Civ.Code § 45 (West 1982). Masson contended that Malcolm fabricated words attributed to him within quotations marks, and misleadingly edited his statements to make him…
…upon one’s seclusion or solitude, (2) public disclosure of embarrassing private facts, (3) publicity which places one in a false light
…[¶] 2. Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts about the plaintiff. [¶] 3. Publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye. [¶] 4. Appropriation, for the defendant's advantage, of the plaintiff's name or likeness. " (Italics added, Prosser,
Yes. The plaintiff must show the defendant published the material with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, the same standard applied to defamation claims under the First Amendment.
Supporting sources
Yes. The claim focuses on the misleading impression created by the publicity rather than literal falsity of every fact. Juxtaposition or context that creates a false implication can satisfy the falsity element.
Supporting sources
False light protects against highly offensive misleading portrayals even without reputational harm in the traditional sense. Defamation requires a false statement of fact that harms reputation. The same conduct may support both claims, and false light is not barred merely because defamation is also available.
Supporting sources
The matter must be given publicity to the public at large or to so many people that it is substantially certain to become public knowledge. Internal or limited distribution may not suffice.
Supporting sources