Public disclosure of private facts is an invasion of privacy claim that allows a person to sue when someone publicizes true but private information that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and is not of legitimate concern to the public. Unlike defamation, the information does not have to be false. Michigan recognizes the claim, and people harmed by a humiliating disclosure often pair it with a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
This guide covers the elements of the tort, the newsworthiness defense, how the claim differs from defamation and false light, how it applies to online disclosures, and what it takes to sue someone for emotional distress.
The Four Invasion of Privacy Torts
Michigan courts, like courts in most states, describe the common-law right to privacy as protecting against four types of invasion:
- Intrusion upon a person’s seclusion or solitude, or into his or her private affairs
- Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts
- Publicity that places a person in a false light in the public eye
- Appropriation of a person’s name or likeness for the defendant’s advantage
Each is a separate claim with its own elements. An invasion of privacy lawsuit may include one or several of them, depending on how the information was obtained and what was done with it. Our article on defamation, false light, and invasion of privacy compares these claims in more detail.
Elements of Public Disclosure of Private Facts
The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D, which the Michigan Supreme Court quoted in Beaumont v. Brown, 401 Mich 80 (1977), states the rule: one who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.
The Michigan Court of Appeals summarized the claim in Doe v. Mills, 212 Mich App 73 (1995) as requiring:
- Disclosure of information about the plaintiff’s private life;
- that is highly offensive to a reasonable person; and
- that is of no legitimate concern to the public.
Publicity is a key concept. Under the Restatement commentary quoted in Beaumont, publicity means the matter is communicated to the public at large, or to so many people that it is substantially certain to become public knowledge. Telling one person a secret is usually not enough, although courts consider the particular relationship and audience involved.
What Counts as a Private Fact?
The Restatement commentary describes private matters as the intimate details of life that a person does not expose to the public eye, such as sexual relations, family quarrels, many unpleasant or humiliating illnesses, intimate personal letters, and details of home life. In Doe v. Mills, the court also noted that matters concerning a person’s medical treatment or condition are generally considered private.
Just as important is what does not qualify. Liability will not be imposed for giving publicity to matters that are already public record or otherwise open to the public. And the offensiveness element is measured objectively: the question is whether a reasonable person would feel justified in feeling seriously aggrieved by the publicity, not whether the plaintiff was merely embarrassed.
The Newsworthiness Defense
Because the tort requires that the information not be of legitimate public concern, newsworthiness is the most common defense. Truthful reporting on matters of public interest is strongly protected, and public figures have a narrower zone of privacy than private individuals.
Newsworthiness has limits, though. In Doe v. Mills, the trial court reasoned that because abortion is a subject of great public concern, the plaintiffs could not show the disclosure was of no legitimate public concern. The Court of Appeals disagreed. Even if a topic is of public interest, the court held, the identities of the particular women involved were purely private matters. The fact that someone participates in an activity the public cares about does not make every aspect of that person’s life fair game.
A Michigan Example: Doe v. Mills
In Doe v. Mills, protesters outside a clinic held up large signs displaying the real names of two women and indicating that they were about to undergo abortions. The information had been found in a clinic dumpster by a third party. The trial court dismissed the women’s claims, but the Court of Appeals reinstated both the public disclosure claim and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, holding that a jury could find the publicity highly offensive, the information private, and the conduct outrageous. The court affirmed dismissal of the separate intrusion upon seclusion claim because the defendants had not themselves obtained the information by an objectionable method.
How This Claim Differs From Defamation and False Light
- Defamation requires a false statement of fact that harms reputation. Truth is a complete defense.
- False light involves publicity that places a person in a false light in the public eye, such as a misleading implication, even if not strictly defamatory.
- Public disclosure of private facts involves true information. Truth is not a defense; the wrong is making private matters public.
The deadlines can differ, too. In Michigan, libel and slander claims carry a one-year limitations period under MCL 600.5805(11), while the general period for injury to persons is three years under MCL 600.5805(2). Which period applies to a privacy or emotional distress claim can depend on how the claim is characterized, so it is safest not to wait.
Online Disclosures of Private Information
The internet has made this tort far more relevant. Examples of disclosures that can support a claim, depending on the facts, include posting someone’s medical diagnosis or mental health history in a public group, publishing private messages about a person’s sexual life, “outing” someone to their community, and sharing intimate photos or videos without consent. Online posts can be indexed, copied, and shared indefinitely, which can increase both the reach of the disclosure and the resulting harm.
Other legal tools may work alongside a privacy claim. If you own the copyright in a photograph that was posted, see our article on publication of private photographs and privacy law. For nonconsensual intimate images, federal law now adds platform removal obligations, as discussed in our post on the TAKE IT DOWN Act.
Suing Someone for Emotional Distress
Many people whose private lives are exposed want to know whether they can sue for the emotional harm itself. The claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) is available, but it is intentionally difficult to win. Michigan courts list four elements:
- Extreme and outrageous conduct
- Intent or recklessness
- Causation
- Severe emotional distress
In Roberts v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 422 Mich 594 (1985), the Michigan Supreme Court quoted the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 commentary describing the standard. Liability has been found only where conduct is so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. It does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities. Even conduct that is tortious, malicious, or criminal is not automatically enough.
The court first decides whether conduct could reasonably be regarded as extreme and outrageous; where reasonable people may differ, the question goes to the jury. That is why IIED claims are often dismissed early, and why they tend to succeed alongside, rather than instead of, a stronger claim such as public disclosure of private facts.
What to Do If Your Private Facts Were Published
- Document the disclosure with screenshots, URLs, dates, and the names of any accounts involved
- Report the content to the platform using its privacy or harassment reporting tools
- Avoid public arguments with the poster, which can spread the information further
- Preserve evidence of the harm, including messages from people who saw the post and records of any treatment
- Consult a privacy attorney about the elements, available remedies, and applicable deadlines
Frequently Asked Questions
What is public disclosure of private facts?
Public disclosure of private facts is an invasion of privacy tort. It applies when someone gives publicity to a matter concerning another person’s private life that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and is not of legitimate concern to the public. Unlike defamation, the information does not need to be false; the claim is about publicizing true information that should have stayed private.
Does Michigan recognize the public disclosure of private facts tort?
Yes. Michigan courts recognize public disclosure of embarrassing private facts as one of four common-law invasion of privacy claims. In Doe v. Mills, the Michigan Court of Appeals described the elements as the disclosure of information that is highly offensive to a reasonable person and of no legitimate concern to the public, and allowed a claim to proceed against protesters who displayed patients’ names on signs.
How is public disclosure of private facts different from defamation?
Defamation requires a false statement of fact that harms reputation, and truth is a defense. Public disclosure of private facts involves true information, so truth is not a defense. False light, a related privacy claim, involves publicity that places a person in a false light. The same post can sometimes support more than one of these claims.
Can I sue someone for emotional distress?
Yes, but the bar is high. A claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress generally requires extreme and outrageous conduct, intent or recklessness, causation, and severe emotional distress. Michigan courts follow the Restatement standard: the conduct must go beyond all possible bounds of decency. Mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, and petty oppressions are not enough.
What should I do if my private information was posted online?
Document the post with screenshots, URLs, and dates. Report it to the platform, and if the content includes photos you took, consider whether a copyright takedown notice is available. Avoid public back-and-forth with the poster. Then speak with a privacy attorney promptly, because deadlines apply and early action can limit how far the information spreads.
Protect Your Privacy Rights
A public disclosure of private facts can cause lasting harm, but the law does provide remedies when the disclosure is highly offensive and not newsworthy. The sooner you act, the more options you are likely to have for removal and recovery.
If your private information has been exposed, the privacy attorneys at Revision Legal can evaluate your invasion of privacy and emotional distress claims and help you pursue removal. Contact us through the form on this page or call (855) 473-8474.
