Opinion ID: 662398
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Moldea's False Light Invasion of Privacy Claim

Text: 76 Finally, we agree with Moldea's contention that the lower court applied an incorrect standard in dismissing his false light invasion of privacy claim. The District Court stated that, to recover for such a claim, a plaintiff must show publication of private information which places him in a false light. Moldea, 793 F.Supp. at 337 (citing Dresbach v. Doubleday & Co., 518 F.Supp. 1285 (D.D.C.1981)) (emphasis added). Based on this erroneous statement of the law, the District Court dismissed Moldea's false light claim on the grounds that the publication of over 28,000 copies of Interference is not a private event. Id. at 338. 77 The law of the District of Columbia concerning false light invasion of privacy is based on the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS' definition of that cause of action. See Vassiliades v. Garfinckel's, 492 A.2d 580 (D.C.1985); see also White, 909 F.2d at 522. RESTATEMENT Sec. 652E defines the tort as follows: 78 One who falsely gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if([304 U.S.App.D.C. 420] a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and 79 (b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed. 80 Comment a to RESTATEMENT Sec. 652E explains that, unlike the other privacy torts, a false light claim does not depend on the publication of private facts: 81 The form of invasion of privacy covered by the rule stated in this Section does not depend on making public any facts concerning the private life of the individual. On the contrary, it is essential to the rule stated in this Section that the matter published concerning the plaintiff is not true. 82 There is a great deal of overlap between the causes of action for defamation and false light. The RESTATEMENT notes that the false light tort addresses situations in which a plaintiff is made to appear to be otherwise than he is, when such a false characterization would also be highly offensive to a reasonable person. RESTATEMENT Sec. 652E cmt. b. Publicity that is actionable in a false light claim generally will be actionable in defamation as well. A plaintiff may only recover on one of the two theories based on a single publication, but is free to plead them in the alternative. See id. We note, however, that a plaintiff may not avoid the strictures of the burdens of proof associated with defamation by resorting to a claim of false light invasion. See Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 669, 111 S.Ct. 2513, 2519, 115 L.Ed.2d 586 (1991); Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 56, 108 S.Ct. 876, 882, 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988). 83 The District Court erred in requiring Moldea to show that the Times had publicized private facts concerning him. We therefore remand Moldea's false light claim for further proceedings.