Also known as: privacy tort · invasion of privacy
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Common-law claims that redress invasions of a person's seclusion, private affairs, or public image through appropriation, intrusion, public disclosure of private facts, or false light portrayal.
Pavel Petrov, a local official, discovers a newspaper ran his photo with a caption stating he had accepted bribes. The editors knew the caption was false yet published it anyway. Pavel sues for false light invasion of privacy, and the court requires proof that the portrayal was highly offensive and made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
Peter Park learns that a television station aired his daughter's name and address from a publicly filed police report identifying her as a sexual assault victim. He sues the station for public disclosure of private facts. The court holds that truthful publication of information obtained from public records receives First Amendment protection and defeats the privacy claim.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Pedro Pacheco places a call from a closed phone booth and discusses personal financial matters. Government agents attach a listening device to the outside of the booth without a warrant and record the call. Pedro sues for intrusion upon seclusion, claiming the recording invaded his reasonable expectation that the conversation would remain private.
Pierce Patterson, a well-known minister, reads a magazine parody depicting him as having engaged in an incestuous relationship with his mother in an outhouse. The piece is labeled as satire and uses obviously exaggerated style. Pierce sues for false light and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but the court applies First Amendment limits requiring proof of actual malice.
Patricia Patel discovers that a network drama series reenacted a hostage incident involving her family and portrayed her as having made statements she never uttered. She sues for false light invasion of privacy. The court requires her to prove both falsity and actual malice because the broadcast concerned a matter of public interest.
Pierre Poulin, a union negotiator, speaks on a cell phone about sensitive bargaining strategy. An unknown person intercepts and records the call, then delivers the tape to a radio station that broadcasts it. Pierre sues the station for public disclosure of private facts. The court holds that the First Amendment protects the broadcast of lawfully obtained truthful information on a matter of public concern.
A plaintiff must show that the defendant published material placing the plaintiff in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and that the defendant acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
No. When the misrepresentation concerns only collateral publicity details and does not change the essential character of the entry and photography to which the plaintiff agreed, consent remains valid for the intrusion tort.
Consent is ineffective when the defendant induces a substantial mistake about the nature or extent of the invasion through misrepresentation, such as describing collection as anonymous when it actually captures personal passwords.
Public figures must prove actual malice. Satirical content receives strong protection, and liability is barred absent a showing that the defendant knew the statements would be understood as factual or acted with reckless disregard of that risk.
…recognized truth as a complete defense. Thus, nondefamatory factual errors could render a publisher liable for something akin to invasion of privacy. The Court ruled that the defendant in such an action could invoke the New York Times privilege regardless of the fame or anonymity of the plaintiff. Speaking for the Court, MR. JUSTICE…