## Facts

- Joe Anderson, Jr. sued Gannett Corporation, the publisher of a Florida newspaper, asserting a common-law claim for invasion of privacy under a “false light” theory based on a newspaper publication about him.
- After a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment for Anderson on the false-light claim and awarded damages.
- Gannett appealed to the First District Court of Appeal.
- The First DCA reversed, holding that a false-light claim is governed by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to defamation (not the four-year residual limitations period for unspecified torts) and that Anderson’s claim was therefore time-barred.
- The First DCA certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court and certified conflict with a different DCA decision that had applied a four-year limitations period to false-light claims.

## Issues

1. Is an invasion-of-privacy action based on a false light theory governed by the two-year statute of limitations for defamation or the four-year statute for unspecified torts?
2. As a threshold matter, does Florida recognize the tort of false light invasion of privacy such that any limitations question must be answered?

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court applied its same-day decision in *Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp* and held that Florida does not recognize false light invasion of privacy as a cause of action.
- Because the certified limitations question assumed the existence of a valid false-light claim, the Court treated the statute-of-limitations question as moot.
- The Court approved the First DCA’s result to the extent it set aside Anderson’s false-light recovery, but quashed the portion of the First DCA’s reasoning that analyzed which limitations period would apply to false light.
- As a practical matter, Anderson could not recover on a false-light theory because that tort is not available under Florida law.

## Legal Principles

- Florida does not recognize false light invasion of privacy as an actionable tort.
- When a certified question depends on a cause of action that Florida does not recognize, the court need not decide subsidiary questions (such as the applicable statute of limitations) because any answer would be advisory.
- Conflicting DCA decisions applying different limitations periods to false-light claims are superseded once the state supreme court rejects false light as a recognized tort.
- Plaintiffs complaining of harmful publications must proceed, if at all, under recognized theories such as defamation or other established privacy torts, rather than false light.

## Conclusion

In *Anderson v. Gannett Corporation*, the Florida Supreme Court declined to choose between a two-year and four-year statute of limitations for false-light claims because, under its controlling decision in *Jews for Jesus*, Florida does not recognize false light invasion of privacy at all; accordingly, Anderson’s false-light judgment could not stand and the limitations dispute was moot.


Anderson v. Gannett Corporation, 994 So. 2d 1048 (2008)