False Light Invasion of Privacy

Revision Legal

False light invasion of privacy, like defamation, is a tort intended to protect an individual against statements that place that individual in a false light. At common law, a plaintiff must prove the following to establish a claim for false light invasion of privacy:

  1. That the defendant published a statement to third parties;
  2. That the published statement specifically identifies the plaintiff;
  3. That the statement places the plaintiff in a false light that is highly offensive to a reasonable person; and
  4. That the defendant knew that the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard with respect to the falsity of the statement

Since false light invasion of privacy is a state law tort, these elements may change depending on the applicable state law. Additionally, due to its closeness to a defamation cause of action, some states do not recognize false light invasion of privacy as a viable cause of action. Where states do recognize a cause of action for false light invasion of privacy, many states recognize that the cause of action for false light invasion provides a remedy for the emotional distress suffered by a plaintiff unlike defamation, which provides a remedy for damage to the plaintiff’s reputation.

Extra, Extra!
Recent Posts

Can I Trademark a Non-English Word or Phrase in the U.S.?

Can I Trademark a Non-English Word or Phrase in the U.S.?

Trademark

Yes, as long as the proposed trademark meets the other requirements for registration. U.S. trademark laws do not require that only the English language can be used for trademarks. However, whatever the language, trademarks must meet the legal requirements, including functionality, distinctiveness, uniqueness, etc. For example, every trademark must function as a trademark in that […]

Read more about Can I Trademark a Non-English Word or Phrase in the U.S.?

California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act Declared Wholly Unconstitutional

California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act Declared Wholly Unconstitutional

Internet Law

In a new ruling, a California federal judge has declared the entirety of California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (“CAADCA”) to be unconstitutional. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.99.28 et seq. See media report here and the Opinion here. The case is Netchoice, LLC. v. Bonta, Case No. 22-cv-08861-BLF (US N.Dist. Cal, March 13, 2025). The CAADCA […]

Read more about California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act Declared Wholly Unconstitutional

Put Revision Legal on your side