Opinion ID: 198846
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: False light

Text: 230 In Nelson v. Maine Times, 373 A.2d 1221 (Me. 1977), the Maine Supreme Judicial Court adopted the requirements for false light invasion of privacy of the Restatement (Second) of Torts 652E (1977). Id. at 1223-24. One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability for invasion of 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 was placed. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 652E. Put another way, Maine law requires proof of defendants' actual malice. See Cantrell v. Forest City Publ'g Co., 419 U.S. 245, 251-52 (1974); Frobose v. American Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Danville, 152 F.3d 602, 617 (7th Cir. 1998). 231 The plaintiffs' false light claim was premised on precisely the same thirteen statements that underlay their defamation claim, most of which were rejected on appeal because plaintiffs failed to establish that defendants acted with the requisite fault. A fortiori, plaintiffs cannot satisfy the more onerous standard of actual malice required by Maine law for their false light claim. 232 To the extent that our defamation holding was premised on concepts other than lack of fault, constitutional limitations on false light claims similarly preclude our entertaining a false light claim. See Brown v. Hearst Corp., 54 F.3d 21, 27 (1st Cir. 1995); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts 652E cmt. e. Specifically, those statements that we rejected because plaintiffs failed to establish that they were materially false cannot support a false light claim any more than they can a defamation claim. See Brown, 54 F.3d at 27; Varnish v. Best Medium Publ'g Co., Inc., 405 F.2d 608, 611 (2d Cir. 1968); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts 652E cmt. c. Nor can protected statements of opinion support a claim of false light. See Partington v. Bugliosi, 56 F.3d 1147, 1160-61 (9th Cir. 1995); Moldea v. New York Times Co., 22 F.3d 310, 319 (D.C. Cir. 1994); White, 909 F.2d at 518; Rinsley v. Brandt, 700 F.2d 1304, 1307 (10th Cir. 1983). Moreover, to the extent that we determined that the statements at issue did not disparage plaintiffs, those statements fail to satisfy the requirement under Maine law that the false light in which plaintiffs were placed be highly offensive to a reasonable person. 233 Plaintiffs nonetheless contend that we should sustain their false light claim even if we reverse the defamation judgment. It is true that there are some differences in the common law elements of these two claims. See, e.g., Machleder, 801 F.2d at 55-56 (unlike defamation, false light doctrine does not distinguish between oral and written words, or between slander per se and slander requiring special damages); Frye v. IBP, Inc., 15 F. Supp.2d 1032, 1043 (D. Kan. 1998) (false light and defamation differ in that former contains expanded publicity requirement); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts 652E cmt. b (statement need not be defamatory to support a false light claim). None of these distinctions, however, are material here. 234 No Maine court has yet grappled with the question of whether a false light claim may proceed where a defamation claim premised on the same statement may not. Given that we previously have rejected this sort of evasion of constitutional restrictions, see Brown, 54 F.3d at 27; Gashgai v. Leibowitz, 703 F.2d 10, 12 (1st Cir. 1983), as well as the absence of clear precedent in other circuits, we will not break new and constitutionally suspect ground today. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment as to the plaintiffs' false light claim.