Also known as:publicity of private lives · public disclosure of private facts · invasion of privacy
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A tort imposing liability when one gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and is not of legitimate public concern.
See Our Sources· 1 primary source
Cases
Restatements
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Alumni Magazine Exposes Confidential Records
A university alumni magazine published an article naming Dana and detailing her past expulsion for plagiarism along with a suicide attempt drawn from confidential disciplinary and counseling files. The article spread these facts to alumni readers years after the events. Dana suffered emotional distress from the exposure of intensely private information that a reasonable person would find highly offensive. The publicity of these non-newsworthy private facts from restricted records supports her claim under the tort.
Magazine Recounts Family Hostage Ordeal
Life magazine ran an article describing a play as a reenactment of the Hill family's nineteen-hour hostage ordeal and illustrated it with photographs taken inside their former home. The Hills were not public figures and the details of their private trauma had not been widely publicized before. Publication of these intimate facts to a broad readership caused them severe distress. The disclosure of non-public private life details that a reasonable person would find offensive gives rise to liability.
Satirical Sketch Broadcasts Private Details
A television network aired a sketch comedy segment that portrayed a public figure in a town-hall format confessing to accepting kickbacks and rigging bids while an audience laughed. The segment revealed specific personal and financial dealings that had remained private. Viewers who mistook the parody for fact caused the figure emotional harm. Widespread dissemination of these private facts in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person triggers the tort even when presented as satire.
Article Details Private Divorce Finances
A law firm posted on its marketing blog a vivid account of Maria's divorce including details about children, jobs, and assets that identified her within the community. The facts came from confidential client records and had not been public before. Publication to an online audience caused Maria emotional distress. The unreasonable publicity given to these private facts supports recovery under the tort.
News Report Names Rape Victim
A television station broadcast the name of a deceased seventeen-year-old rape victim that had appeared in official court records open to public inspection. The victim's family had kept the details private and the disclosure caused them profound distress. The report publicized intimate facts about the victim's private life to a wide audience. Because the information concerned private matters not of legitimate public concern, the broadcast supports a claim for the tort.
Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn420 U.S. 469, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 43 L.Ed.2d 328 (1975)
In August 1971, appellee Cohn's 17-year-old daughter was raped and murdered in Georgia. Six youths were indicted for murder and rape.
Although there was substantial press coverage of the crime and of subsequent developments, the identity of the victim was not disclosed pending trial, perhaps because of Ga. Code Ann. § 26-9901 (1972).
In April 1972, during court proceedings in which five defendants entered guilty pleas, reporter Wassell for petitioner Cox Broadcasting Corporation examined the indictments made available in the courtroom. Wassell obtained the victim's name from those public records and broadcast it on WSB-TV that day and again the following day.
In May 1972, Cohn filed suit in the Superior Court of Fulton County against Cox Broadcasting and Wassell. The complaint alleged invasion of privacy arising from the television broadcasts that named his deceased daughter and sought money damages.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Cohn on the issue of liability.
The Georgia Supreme Court initially held that the complaint stated a common-law claim for public disclosure. On rehearing the court sustained the constitutionality of the state statute prohibiting publication of a rape victim's name.
The United States Supreme Court postponed decision on jurisdiction to the hearing on the merits and reviewed the case after the Georgia Supreme Court rejected the constitutional challenge to liability.
Hidden Camera Records Medical Exam
A hospital installed hidden cameras in patient rooms and later displayed footage of Riley undergoing an intimate examination to attendees at a medical conference. Riley was clearly identifiable and had not consented to any public showing. The images revealed highly personal medical details that had remained private. The hospital's decision to publicize these intimate facts in an offensive manner gives rise to liability under the tort.
Dietemann v. Time, Inc.449 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1971)
Dietemann, a disabled veteran with little education, was engaged in the practice of healing with clay, minerals, and herbs—as practiced, simple quackery. Defendant Time, Incorporated, publishes Life Magazine, and its November 1, 1963 edition carried an article entitled “Crackdown on Quackery” depicting plaintiff as a quack and including two pictures of him.
Life Magazine entered into an arrangement with the District Attorney’s Office of Los Angeles County whereby Life’s employees would visit plaintiff and obtain facts and pictures concerning his activities. On September 20, 1963, Life employees Mrs. Jackie Metcalf and Mr. William Ray went to plaintiff’s home using a ruse to gain entrance by claiming they had been sent by a friend, a Mr. Johnson, and once admitted they went into plaintiff’s den where Ray photographed plaintiff with a hidden camera without consent while transmitting the conversation via a hidden radio transmitter in Metcalf’s purse to a tape recorder in a parked automobile.
Prior to September 20, 1963, on two occasions the officials had obtained recordings of conversations in plaintiff’s home without Life employees participating, and on October 15, 1963, plaintiff was arrested at his home on a charge of practicing medicine without a license during which Life made many pictures. The district court awarded plaintiff $1000 general damages after a court trial in an action for invasion of privacy with jurisdiction grounded in diversity and the parties agreeing that California law governed, from which Time appealed.
5 common questions
Students Frequently Ask...
What elements must a plaintiff prove for a publicity of private life claim?
The plaintiff must show that the defendant gave publicity to a matter concerning the plaintiff's private life, that the matter would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and that it is not of legitimate public concern. Publicity requires communication to the public at large or to a substantial number of people. The facts must be truly private and not already public knowledge.
Does truth of the disclosed facts defeat a publicity of private life claim?
No. Unlike defamation, truth is not a defense to the publicity of private life tort. The claim protects against the offensive disclosure of true but private facts rather than false statements that harm reputation.
When does a disclosure involve a matter of legitimate public concern?
A disclosure involves legitimate public concern when it relates to newsworthy events or matters of public interest such as official proceedings or the conduct of public figures. Private facts drawn from confidential records years after the events typically lack legitimate public concern even if the subject was once in the news.
Can a limited internal disclosure satisfy the publicity element?
No. Publicity requires communication to the public at large or to enough people that the matter becomes substantially certain to become public knowledge. Disclosure to a small group of colleagues or within a single organization usually does not meet this threshold.
How does the tort interact with First Amendment protections?
The tort is subject to First Amendment limitations similar to those applied in defamation cases. When the plaintiff is a public figure or the speech concerns a matter of public concern, the plaintiff may need to prove actual malice. Private facts lacking legitimate public concern receive less protection.
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…
is present. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D (1977). See also Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn , 420 U. S. 469 (1975) (action for
invasion of privacy
cannot be maintained when the…
of the incident,” the court further held that “[w]e are unwilling to accept the proposition that the filming and television broadcast of a reasonable search and seizure,…
Civil ProcedureJurisdiction and venue · Federal subject-matter jurisdictionNEXTGENFoundational