Invasion of Privacy: Four Ways to Cross the Line

⚡ 10-Second Rule

You get four claims when someone snoops, cashes in on you, distorts you, or spills your secrets.

🧒 ELI-10 Scene

Meet Ruth, the worst neighbor ever. Monday, she peeks through Omar's bathroom window. That's snooping. Tuesday, she prints Omar's face on her jam jars to boost sales. That's cashing in on him. Wednesday, she photoshops Omar into a protest he never attended and posts it everywhere. That's distorting him. Thursday, she reads Omar's private medical file aloud at the block party. That's spilling secrets. Four different wrongs, one nosy neighbor. Each wrong gets its own claim.

⚖️ Actual Rule

Paraphrasing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652A, the privacy tort has four distinct branches. Intrusion upon seclusion (§ 652B, paraphrased): intentionally intruding, physically or otherwise, on another's solitude, seclusion, or private affairs, where the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person — no publication required. Appropriation (§ 652C, paraphrased): using another's name or likeness for one's own use or benefit — on the exam, almost always commercial advantage. Public disclosure of private facts (§ 652D, paraphrased): giving publicity to private facts about another where the disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and the facts are not of legitimate public concern — newsworthiness defeats the claim, and truth does not. False light (§ 652E, paraphrased): giving publicity to a matter that places another before the public in a false light, highly offensive to a reasonable person, where the defendant knew of or recklessly disregarded the falsity; the Supreme Court required this actual-malice showing for false-light claims involving matters of public interest in Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967). Unlike defamation, communication to one person is not enough for the two "publicity" branches — widespread dissemination is required — and no branch requires special pecuniary damages; emotional distress suffices. Consent defeats all four branches.

ELI-10 translation: snooping, cashing in, distorting, and secret-spilling each break a privacy rule, even without lost money.

🔍 Ask These Questions

1. Which branch fits the conduct — snooping, cashing in, distorting, or spilling? (Name the wrong first; each branch has different pieces.)
2. For intrusion: was the space or information truly private, and is the snooping highly offensive? (Peeking into a bathroom counts; watching someone on a public sidewalk doesn't.)
3. For appropriation: was the plaintiff's name or likeness used for the defendant's benefit? (Putting someone's face on a product to sell it counts.)
4. For disclosure: were truly private facts spread widely, and are they non-newsworthy? (Telling one friend isn't enough, and real news doesn't count.)
5. For false light: was the portrayal false, widely spread, and highly offensive? (A widely spread lie about who you are can count.)
6. Any defense — consent or newsworthiness? (Saying yes, or being part of legitimate news, ends the claim.)

⚠️ Bar Trap

Exam language: Examiners bait you into importing defamation doctrine: an answer choice defeats a public-disclosure claim because "the statements were true," or defeats a privacy claim for want of special damages. Truth is a complete defense to defamation but is irrelevant to intrusion, appropriation, and public disclosure; falsity matters only for false light. Conversely, publication to a single third party suffices for defamation but not for the publicity-based privacy branches.

ELI-10: Privacy claims and false-story claims are different animals. "But it was true" only rescues the false-story claim. Secret-spilling is wrong precisely because the secret is true.

🧪 Question

Marisol was treated for a serious eating disorder eight years ago, recovered fully, and told no one outside her immediate family. Her former roommate Bree, angry over an unpaid utility bill, obtained copies of Marisol's old treatment records and posted them in full to a neighborhood social-media group with several thousand local members. Every statement in the records was accurate. Marisol, a private citizen with no public role, sued Bree for public disclosure of private facts, proving severe emotional distress but no monetary loss. What is the likely result?

(A) Bree prevails, because every fact she posted was true. (B) Bree prevails, because Marisol proved no special pecuniary damages. (C) Marisol prevails, if the disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and the records were not of legitimate public concern. (D) Marisol prevails, only if she proves Bree acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.

Answer: (C). Public disclosure requires publicity of private facts, high offensiveness, and no legitimate public concern. Posting complete treatment records to thousands of neighbors satisfies publicity; a private citizen's years-old medical history is a classic non-newsworthy private fact; emotional distress damages suffice.

💡 Why the Wrong Answers Are Wrong

• (A) imports defamation's truth defense; public disclosure targets true private facts, so truth is no defense.
• (B) adds a special-damages requirement that belongs to slander, not privacy; emotional distress is enough.
• (D) grafts the false-light and defamation fault standard onto a branch that has no falsity element at all.
• ELI-10: The misconception is treating every reputation claim like defamation. Secret-spilling punishes true stories that were nobody's business.