Opinion ID: 2631844
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Colorado's Recognition of the Appropriation Tort

Text: A brief review of the development of the tort of invasion of privacy in Colorado demonstrates that recognition of the appropriation tort is a natural outgrowth of our earlier precedent. We have recognized that invasion of privacy is a cognizable tort under Colorado law. Rugg v. McCarty, 173 Colo. 170, 175, 476 P.2d 753, 755 (1970). In Rugg, we held that a plaintiff may assert a claim for invasion of privacy where a creditor unreasonably attempts collection of a debt in a manner that will foreseeably result in extreme mental anguish and embarrassment to the debtor. Id. at 176, 476 P.2d at 755. In reaching this decision, we relied both on a Colorado statute that protected a privacy right [4] and the fact that a majority of jurisdictions had recognized the tort of invasion of privacy. Id. at 175, 476 P.2d at 755. We did not, however, attempt to comprehensively define the right of privacy, nor to categorize the character of all invasions which may constitute a violation of such right. Id. Recently, we recognized the tort of invasion of privacy by unreasonable publicity given to another's private life. Ozer v. Borquez, 940 P.2d 371, 377 (Colo.1997). As in Rugg, we relied upon the fact that a majority of jurisdictions have recognized this tort. Id. Similarly, the tort of invasion of privacy by appropriation of a plaintiff's name or likeness has been recognized throughout most of the United States, either statutorily or through the common law. Staruski v. Cont'l Tel. Co., 154 Vt. 568, 581 A.2d 266, 268 (1990) (stating that almost all states have recognized the tort). Further, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant in this case disputes that such a tort is cognizable in Colorado. We now hold that Colorado recognizes the tort of invasion of privacy by appropriation of an individual's name or likeness.