Also known as: publicize private life · publicized private life · publicizing of private facts · public disclosure of private facts · public disclosure · privacy tort · invasion of privacy
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A privacy tort that imposes liability when a defendant 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. The tort protects mental and emotional interests by recognizing that nonconsensual disclosure of intimate facts in a private setting causes actionable harm even when the facts are true.
Valley Hospital installed hidden cameras in patient rooms without consent. It later screened selected clips at a medical conference that showed Pierre Poulin undergoing an intimate examination. The footage identified Poulin and revealed highly personal medical details to an audience of strangers. Poulin's privacy claim proceeds because the disclosure placed intimate facts before the public in a manner a reasonable person would find offensive.
A network aired a sketch that portrayed Peter Park, a sitting governor, confessing to bribery during a staged town-hall segment. The broadcast used realistic staging and referenced prior unsubstantiated rumors about Park. Viewers interpreted the segment as reporting actual misconduct. Park's claim proceeds because the disclosure placed intimate facts before the public in a manner a reasonable person would find offensive.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A television station broadcast the name of Portia Price's deceased daughter taken directly from public court records. The report repeated the name the following day. Price sued for invasion of privacy. The station's disclosure of the victim's identity from official records receives First Amendment protection under the rule that truthful publication of public-record information cannot be punished.
A magazine published a fictionalized story that closely tracked Pamela Phillips's real family ordeal. The article used the family's actual names and described intimate details without consent. Phillips sued for publicizing private life. The publisher may avoid liability only by showing the disclosure was not highly offensive or was of legitimate public concern.
An online publication accused Paul Peterson, a low-profile engineer, of falsifying safety data. The post relied on a single unverified source and contained an obvious misreading of a document. Peterson sued for publicizing private facts. Because Peterson is a private figure on a matter of public concern, he may recover upon proof of negligence rather than actual malice.
A reporter posing as a patient secretly recorded Patricia Patel during a private medical consultation. The footage was later aired on a national broadcast without Patel's consent. Patel sued for invasion of privacy by publicizing private life. The broadcast of the surreptitiously obtained intimate images supports liability because the recording invaded a protected zone of seclusion.
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. The tort protects emotional and mental interests even when the disclosed facts are true.
Supporting sources
Yes. When the plaintiff is a public figure or the speech concerns a matter of public concern, the plaintiff must prove actual malice—knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth—to recover. This standard prevents chilling protected expression while still allowing recovery for truly private facts.
Supporting sources
Yes. If the plaintiff consented to the disclosure, the claim fails. Ordinary medical-consent forms do not authorize secret recording and public exhibition of intimate examinations for non-treatment purposes.
Supporting sources
…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…