Opinion ID: 4525087
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: for the same reasons, c.m.’s false-light

Text: CLAIM FAILS C.M.’s false-light claim fares no better. Opinions based on true, disclosed facts cannot support a false-light claim unless they create a false impression. Graboff, 744 F.3d at 136–37 (citing Larsen v. Phila. Newspapers, Inc., 543 A.2d 1181, 1189 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988) (en banc)); see also Krajewski v. Gusoff, 53 A.3d 793, 806–07 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012). In Pennsylvania, falsity means the same thing for false light as it does for defamation. Graboff, 744 F.3d at 137. In both contexts, an opinion based on disclosed facts cannot be false. Petula v. Mellody, 588 A.2d 103, 108 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1991). And C.M. never tried 14 to show that any of Professor Gitlin’s opinions referred to or implied facts that could be proven false. Plus, the false-light tort requires actual malice. See 3 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E; Graboff, 744 F.3d at 136 (noting that Pennsylvania follows the Second Restatement); see also Krajewski, 53 A.3d at 807–08, 810. C.M.’s failure to plead actual malice dooms this claim as well. So the District Court properly dismissed both claims.