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 — see sources 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.
Hustler Magazine, Inc., a magazine of nationwide circulation, and its publisher Larry Flynt published a parody of a Campari Liqueur advertisement in the November 1983 issue. The parody featured respondent Jerry Falwell and suggested that his first time sampling the liqueur occurred during a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse. The parody included a disclaimer in small print that it was an ad parody not to be taken seriously. Falwell filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia seeking damages for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District Court directed a verdict against Falwell on the privacy claim. The jury found against respondent on the libel claim but awarded Falwell $100,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages from each petitioner on the emotional distress claim. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari given the importance of the constitutional issues involved.
View caseA 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.
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.
View caseA 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.
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.
View caseAn 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.
In 1968, Chicago police officer Richard Nuccio shot and killed a youth named Nelson. State authorities prosecuted Nuccio and obtained a conviction for second-degree murder. The Nelson family retained petitioner Elmer Gertz, a Chicago attorney, to represent them in civil litigation against Nuccio. Respondent Robert Welch, Inc., publishes American Opinion, a monthly magazine expressing the views of the John Birch Society. In March 1969, the magazine published an article titled "FRAME-UP: Richard Nuccio And The War On Police." The article accused Gertz of participating in a Communist conspiracy to discredit local law enforcement, described him as a "Leninist" and "Communist-fronter," and claimed he had been an officer of the National Lawyers Guild, which it portrayed as a Communist organization involved in planning attacks on Chicago police during the 1968 Democratic Convention. The article contained numerous inaccuracies, including the false implication that Gertz had a criminal record. Gertz had served as an officer of the National Lawyers Guild approximately fifteen years earlier but had no involvement in planning the 1968 demonstrations. He had never been a member of the Marxist League for Industrial Democracy or the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. The managing editor of American Opinion made no effort to verify the charges against Gertz before publication and appended an editorial introduction stating that the author had conducted extensive research. Gertz filed a diversity action for libel in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The district court ruled that the statements constituted libel per se under Illinois law. After a trial, the jury awarded Gertz $50,000 in compensatory damages. The district court later entered judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict, applying the New York Times standard. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the application of constitutional standards to defamation of a private individual.
View caseA 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.
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.
View caseThe 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