## Facts

- CBS produced a segment, “Stand by Me,” for its weekly news/public-affairs program *Street Stories* and broadcast it nationally on April 9, 1992.
- The segment profiled a county crisis-intervention program assisting crime victims and followed a crisis worker during visits to victims.
- Yolanda Baugh called 911 regarding a domestic-violence-related incident at her home; police and crisis-team personnel responded.
- A CBS camera crew accompanied the responders and filmed inside Baugh’s residence.
- Baugh alleged she initially told the camera crew to leave, then allowed them to remain only after a police officer represented they were associated with the district attorney’s office.
- Baugh alleged she was not clearly informed the footage was for a commercial television newsmagazine or that it would be broadcast nationally.
- The broadcast depicted Baugh and her minor daughter, and Baugh claimed emotional distress and invasion of privacy.
- Plaintiffs sued CBS and related entities and personnel under California tort theories, including appropriation, intrusion, public disclosure of private facts, trespass, fraud, unfair competition, NIED, and IIED.
- Defendants sought dismissal or summary judgment; plaintiffs sought summary judgment on trespass and unfair competition and sought relief from automatic arbitration referral.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants were entitled to dismissal or summary judgment on California tort claims arising from filming inside plaintiffs’ home and broadcasting the footage.
2. Whether the alleged consent to filming defeated claims for trespass and intrusion, and whether any consent was vitiated by misrepresentation.
3. Whether the broadcast was protected as newsworthy such that appropriation and related claims failed as a matter of law.
4. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged public disclosure of private facts, fraud, and IIED sufficient to proceed.
5. Whether the local affiliate could avoid potential liability by characterizing itself as a mere conduit for the network broadcast.

## Decision

- Defendants’ motion was granted as to: appropriation of likeness, intrusion upon seclusion, trespass, unfair competition, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Defendants’ motion was denied as to: public disclosure of private facts, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The affiliate’s “mere conduit” argument did not warrant dismissal at this stage.
- Plaintiffs were granted relief from automatic referral to arbitration under the local rule.

## Legal Principles

- Use of an individual’s image in a news or public-affairs broadcast addressing a matter of public interest generally does not constitute actionable appropriation of likeness absent commercial advertising-type exploitation.
- Intrusion upon seclusion requires an intentional intrusion into a private place or affairs that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; filming during a law-enforcement/crisis response, coupled with some form of permission, may be insufficient on the pleaded facts.
- Public disclosure of private facts can proceed where publication identifies a private person and reveals intimate details occurring inside the home in a manner a reasonable person could find highly offensive, even if the general topic is newsworthy.
- Consent obtained through material misstatements or omissions about the filmer’s identity or the purpose and intended public broadcast use of footage may support a fraud claim and can create triable issues about the validity and scope of purported consent.
- IIED may be adequately alleged in a newsgathering context where deceptive access to a vulnerable person’s private crisis and a subsequent nationwide broadcast could be found extreme and outrageous.
- California does not treat NIED as a freestanding tort absent an independent duty or distinct negligence theory beyond other alleged wrongs.
- Unfair competition statutes aimed at marketplace/business practices do not automatically supply a substitute remedy for personal privacy and emotional-distress injuries.

## Conclusion

The court narrowed the case to claims centered on publication of private facts, alleged deceptive procurement of access and consent, and resulting severe emotional distress, while rejecting appropriation, intrusion, trespass, unfair competition, and standalone negligence-based emotional-distress theories at the pretrial stage.


Baugh v. CBS, Inc., 828 F. Supp. 745 (N.D. Cal. 1993)