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:
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 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.
“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.
“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.
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).
Plaintiff’s claim for false light fails for the same reasons set forth above. Additionally, Plaintiff’s claim for false light is duplicative of the claim for defamation.
Nov 28, 2021
San Mateo County, CA
Plaintiff’s claim for false light fails for the same reasons set forth above. Additionally, Plaintiff’s claim for false light is duplicative of the claim for defamation.
Nov 21, 2021
San Mateo County, CA
As to the fourth cause of action: 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 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.
Jan 30, 2018
Riverside County, CA
False Light Plaintiff’s false light count appears to be nothing more than a re-captioning of his defamation count. It relies on exactly the same alleged communications, which (if made and if false) would be directly defamatory. The false-light tort, by contrast, is intended to reach statements that are not defamatory on their face (and may indeed be literally true), but that without context or explanation may cast a false light on the target.
Oct 30, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
Demurrer on ground of uncertainty is OVERRULED. 3rd CAUSE OF ACTION FALSE LIGHT: “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, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at p. 1264, internal citation marks omitted.)
Sep 29, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
Los Angeles County, CA
The causes of action for defamation and for false light incorporate the same facts. No new or additional facts are alleged in the false light cause of action. "When an action for libel is alleged, a false-light claim based on the same facts (as in this case) is superfluous and should be dismissed. (See Kapellas v. Kofman (1969) 1 Cal.3d 20, 35, fn. 16 [81 Cal.Rptr. 360, 459 P. 2d 912]; Selleck v. Globe International, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1123, 1136 [212 Cal.Rptr. 838].)."
Jul 19, 2018
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
San Diego County, CA
The burden now shifts to Plaintiffs to establish a prima facia case for false light and negligence. B. Second Prong – Teresa’s Burden a. False Light Cause of Action The claim of “false light,” is a one of four forms of privacy invasion: (1) intrusion upon one's physical solitude or seclusion; (2) public disclosure of private facts; (3) false light in the public eye; and (4) appropriation. ( Kapellas v. Kofman (1969) 1 Cal.3d 20, 35, fn. 16.)
May 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
As to the ninth cause of action for invasion of privacy (false light), there is nothing uncertain about the captioning of this claim because false light is one of the four recognized types of tortious invasion of privacy. (See Fellows v. Nat'l Enquirer (1986) 42 Cal.3d 234, 238.) Additionally, even if the claim were improperly captioned, the mis-captioning of a claim is not a ground for demurrer. (See Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38-39.)
Aug 07, 2009
Ventura County, CA
ProjectCBD.com (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 869 did not specifically address the statute of limitations and involved traditional libel action and false light claims based upon an article containing false information. While Plaintiff in this case purported to assert a claim for false light, as noted below and argued by Defendant, the complaint does not actually allege a false light cause of action.
Jan 05, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
The statutory and common law restrictions on defamation claims for malice and special damages requirements also apply to false light privacy claims. (Fellows, supra, 42 Cal.3d at 239.) Here, Plaintiff fails to allege any specific statement made by Defendant that could be considered defamatory or that paints her in a false light. The Complaint alleges generally that Defendant published false statements in a chat application that “discriminated” Plaintiff and humiliated her in front of the entire company.
Nov 14, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
