Also known as: invasion of privacy · invasions of privacy
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A tort arising when a defendant publishes material that places the plaintiff in a false light highly offensive to a reasonable person and does so with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
Paige Porter, a private citizen, discovered that a local television station had aired footage of her at a protest rally spliced with narration falsely implying she advocated violence. The station had received a tip that the narration was inaccurate yet aired the segment anyway. Paige sued for privacy invasion. The court applied the actual malice standard and permitted the claim to proceed because the station acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Paul Peterson and his family were held hostage for a day. A national magazine later published an article describing a fictional play as a reenactment of their ordeal and illustrated it with photographs taken inside their former home. The family sued the publisher for privacy invasion under a state statute. The court required proof that the publisher acted with knowledge or reckless disregard that the portrayal was false.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Pedro Pacheco used a public telephone booth to place calls. A broadcaster later aired a report falsely portraying Pacheco as a criminal based on inaccurate surveillance details. Pacheco sued for privacy invasion. The court applied the actual malice standard and permitted the claim because the broadcaster acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Priscilla Parks, a private attorney, was the subject of a magazine article that falsely accused her of participating in a criminal conspiracy. The article was published with serious doubts about its accuracy. Parks sued the publisher for privacy invasion. The court applied the actual malice standard and denied summary judgment because a jury could find reckless disregard.
Peter Park, a union negotiator, participated in a cellular telephone conversation that was illegally intercepted by a third party. A radio station later broadcast the recording on air with false narration implying criminal conduct. Park sued the station for privacy invasion. The court applied the actual malice standard and permitted the claim because the station acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Priya Prasad returned home to find federal narcotics agents had entered and searched her apartment without a warrant, seizing personal papers. A broadcaster later aired a report falsely portraying Prasad as a drug dealer. Prasad sued for privacy invasion. The court applied the actual malice standard and permitted the claim because the broadcaster acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
A plaintiff must prove that the defendant published the material with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth, the same actual malice standard that governs defamation claims against media defendants.
Yes, when the broadcaster did not participate in the illegal interception and the information concerns a matter of public interest, the First Amendment shields the publication from liability for privacy invasion.
Yes, an implied cause of action exists for Fourth Amendment violations committed by federal officers, allowing the victim to seek damages even without a statutory remedy.
…the exercise of federal power, must be rejected. Second. The interests protected by state laws regulating trespass and the invasion of privacy, and those protected by the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, may be inconsistent or even hostile. Thus, we may bar the door against an unwelcome…