Opinion ID: 1804268
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Origins of False Light

Text: Our discussion of false light naturally begins with an overview of the common law tort of invasion of privacy. First recognized in 1890 as a legal theory by Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, [5] common law invasion of privacy was expounded upon in 1960 by William L. Prosser, a leading scholar in tort law. William L. Prosser, Privacy, 48 Cal. L.Rev. 383 (1960). Prosser proposed that invasion of privacy consisted of four distinct torts: (1) intrusion upon the seclusion of another; (2) commercial appropriation of one's name or likeness; [6] (3) publication of private facts; and (4) false light. Id. at 389. Prosser defined the tort of false light as one that consists of publicity that places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye. Id. at 398. The United States Supreme Court in Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co., 419 U.S. 245, 95 S.Ct. 465, 42 L.Ed.2d 419 (1974), a case involving the false light theory of invasion of privacy, referred to the claim as being generally recognized as one of the several distinct kinds of invasions actionable under the privacy rubric. Id. at 248 n. 2, 95 S.Ct. 465. In 1977, the Restatement (Second) of Torts codified Prosser's description of the four categories of invasion of privacy and defined false light as follows: One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if (a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (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. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E. With these background principles in mind, we now address the certified question.