False light requires publicity. Catsouras v. Dept. of Cal. Highway Patrol (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 856, 904.

Publicity that places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye is an actionable invasion of privacy, if the false light is highly offensive to a reasonable person. Fellows v. National Enquirer, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 234, 238-39.

“[A] false light action is in substance equivalent to a defamation [and libel] suit. A plaintiff alleging false light, therefore, must also satisfy the requirements of malice.” Johnson v. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc. (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 880, 893; Jackson v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 1264.

Thus, a Plaintiff must demonstrate:

1. the defendant publicized information or material that showed plaintiff in a false light;
2. the false light created by the publication would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in plaintiff’s position;
3. defendant knew the publication would create a false impression about plaintiff; and
4. plaintiff was harmed and defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm.

CACI 1802.

False light requires publicity. Catsouras v. Dept. of Cal. Highway Patrol (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 856, 904. Publicity, under this tort, requires publication to “the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge....” Id.

False Light...

False Light and Libel

“False light is a species of invasion of privacy, based on publicity that places a plaintiff before the public in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and where the defendant knew or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the plaintiff would be placed.” Jackson v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 1264. A false light claim is substantively equivalent to a libel claim and should meet the same requirements of libel, including proof of malice. Id.

False Light and Defamation

“When a false light claim is coupled with a defamation claim, the false light claim is essentially superfluous and stands or falls on whether it meets the same requirements as the defamation cause of action.” Eisenberg v Alameda Newspapers, Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1359, fn. 13.

False Light and Opinion

“In making the distinction between provably false factual assertions and nonactionable opinion, the courts have defined as opinion any ‘broad, unfocused and wholly subjective comment.’” Copp v. Paxton (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 829, 837. Under the common law privilege of fair comment, an honest expression of opinion on matters of public interest is privileged. Williams v. Daily Review, Inc. (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 405, 416.

False Light and Use of Name and Likeness

In Tamkin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc.(2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 133, 149, where plaintiffs’ false light claim was based on the use of their names, the couple’s likeness, and private details for a television plot lines for upcoming shows. The plaintiffs filed a “complaint for defamation/defamation per se and false light invasion of privacy against defendants arising from defendants' alleged 'intentional and reckless conduct with respect to the writing and dissemination of a screenplay.'” Id.at 139.

After concluding that “because they cannot show that a reasonable person would have understood that the defamatory statements referred to them....” the court held that, “[p]laintiffs’ false light invasion of privacy cause of action fails for the same reasons.” See Kapellas v. Kofman (1969) 1 Cal.3d 20, 35, fn. 16 (false light claim “is in substance equivalent to the [plaintiffs] libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim on all aspects.”); Gilbert v. Sykes (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 13, 34 (the collapse of the defamation claim spells the demise of all other causes of action in the same complaint which allegedly arise from the same publication).