How To Prove A California Invasion of Privacy – Public Disclosure of Private Facts Claim

In California, a claim of Invasion of Privacy – Public Disclosure of Private Facts is defined as:
Public Disclosure of Private Facts is an invasion of privacy claim. It is the intrusion into the personal life of another, without just cause, which can give the person whose privacy has been invaded a right to bring a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity that intruded. See also Invasion of Privacy and Intrusion Into Private Affairs.
It simply means:
When one party violates personal space or information of another party.
There are 4 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. The defendant disclosed a fact to the public. The defendant shared a private piece of information about someone that was not previously known to the public, making it accessible to others without the person’s consent.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant shared the plaintiff’s medical history on a public social media platform without consent.
* The defendant published an article detailing the plaintiff’s personal financial struggles in a widely circulated newspaper.
* The defendant leaked the plaintiff’s private correspondence to a local news station, resulting in public broadcast.
* The defendant posted intimate photographs of the plaintiff on a public website, accessible to anyone.
* The defendant disclosed the plaintiff’s home address during a public speech, leading to unwanted attention. - Element 2. The fact was private. The fact in question must be something personal that the individual did not want to be shared publicly, meaning it was kept private and not known to others, which is essential for a claim of invasion of privacy through public disclosure of private facts.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The individual maintained a private social media account with restricted access to only close friends and family.
* The information disclosed was shared during a confidential therapy session, intended solely for the therapist’s professional use.
* The individual had not publicly discussed their medical history, keeping it strictly between themselves and their healthcare providers.
* The details of the individual’s personal finances were only known to a select group of trusted advisors.
* The individual had taken steps to keep their home life private, such as using a pseudonym in community forums. - Element 3. The defendant’s disclosure of the fact would be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person. This means that if the defendant reveals private information, it would upset or disturb an average person, making it clear that such a disclosure is inappropriate and unacceptable in a reasonable social context.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant publicly revealed the plaintiff’s medical history, which included sensitive information about a serious illness.
* The defendant disclosed the plaintiff’s financial struggles, including bankruptcy filings, to a large audience without consent.
* The defendant shared intimate details of the plaintiff’s personal relationships on social media, leading to public ridicule.
* The defendant published private correspondence between the plaintiff and a therapist, violating the plaintiff’s trust and confidentiality.
* The defendant exposed the plaintiff’s sexual orientation in a public forum, causing emotional distress and social stigma. - Element 4. The fact was not of legitimate public concern. This means that the private information shared was not something that the public had a right to know or that would interest them, making it inappropriate to disclose.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The disclosed information pertained to the individual’s private medical history, which had no relevance to public interest or discourse.
* The details shared were personal communications between the individual and their family, lacking any significance to the community at large.
* The information involved the individual’s financial struggles, which are typically considered private and not of public concern.
* The facts revealed were related to the individual’s romantic relationships, which do not contribute to any legitimate public debate or interest.
* The disclosure included private family matters that had no bearing on the individual’s public life or responsibilities.
(See Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc., 955 P. 2d 469 – Cal: Supreme Court 1998. Forsher v. Bugliosi supra, 26 Cal.3d at pp. 808-809,163 Cal.Rptr. 628, 608 P.2d 716. Willis v. City of Bakersfield, Dist. Court, ED California 2021.)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Invasion of Privacy – Public Disclosure of Private Facts, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents supported by thorough legal research and strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge to effectively navigate your legal journey.
Prove Your CA Invasion of Privacy – Public Disclosure of Private Facts Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only