Opinion ID: 2807850
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appropriation Claim

Text: The tort of appropriation protects Wagner's right of privacy, specifically protecting against one who would appropriate to his own use or benefit Wagner's name or likeness. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652C. Wagner pursued this claim against Gallup because, according to Wagner, for a period of at least nineteen months following Wagner's termination, Gallup failed to indicate on its website that Wagner was no longer a principal of Gallup on the particular web page (or pages) describing Wagner and listing the two books he had written for Gallup. Specifically, the statement at issue was that Rodd Wagner is a New York Times bestselling author and a principal of Gallup. Wagner does not contend that the website should no longer have referred to him, but argues that the statement at issue should have been modified to describe him as a former principal of Gallup. The parties dispute whether Nebraska or Minnesota law governs the appropriation claim. Falling in step with the district court, however, we hold that we need not determine which state's law governs because under either, Wagner's appropriation claim fails. As noted by the district court, under Minnesota and Nebraska law, the appropriation tort is an intentional one. Abdouch v. Lopez, 829 -18- N.W.2d 662, 673 (Neb. 2013); Kovatovich v. K-Mart Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 975, 987 (D. Minn. 1999). So, to succeed on this claim, Wagner must show that Gallup intentionally failed to add the word former to its website page advertising Wagner's books before Gallup can be held liable for appropriation. On appeal, Wagner claims that he can present evidence to the jury allowing them to conclude Gallup's refusal to correct misleading statements about Wagner is based on the commercial advantage Gallup receives as a result, but there is no support for this contention on this record. The district court recognized that the website had been reconfigured multiple times and that certainly Wagner filed his complaint containing this claim in July 2012, which Wagner claims proves that Gallup knew about the use and failed to correct it. The statement remained on the site, actually, until at least May 29, 2013, when Jane Miller, Gallup's chief operating officer, was deposed and asked about it. The district court further acknowledged that Gallup represented to the court that the page about which Wagner complained had since been deleted and that it was at Jane Miller's deposition that Gallup first became aware of the specific page and language on the website to which Wagner objected. The district court concluded that Wagner did not come forward with sufficient evidence of the requisite intentionality for his claim to survive summary judgment and we agree. To establish Gallup knew of his claim, Wagner relies upon the length of time the notation remained on the website and the fact that Gallup had, during that time, changed the name for the whole Gallup Business Journal website, along with the filing of the complaint itself as well as Wagner's statements during his deposition testimony that Gallup should insert the word former on the website. There was no evidence, however, that at any time prior to its ultimate removal after Jane Miller's deposition at which the page was discussed, that there was any retouching or modification of the content on the relevant page that could have, but did not, correct Wagner's principal status. On this record, summary judgment is appropriate because Wagner fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element -19- essential to his appropriation claim on which he bears the burden at trial. Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 805-06 (1999).