## Facts

- A television station aired a consumer news segment reporting that Shirley Brown, identified as a licensed contractor, performed incomplete and substandard home improvement work for a client.
- Brown alleged the broadcast contained false, defamatory statements that harmed her reputation and business.
- Brown sued the station and its reporter for defamation.
- Defendants asserted California Civil Code § 47(3)’s qualified “common interest” privilege, arguing that when news media report matters of public interest they share a common interest with their audience, so the broadcast should be privileged absent malice.
- The trial court accepted defendants’ privilege theory and granted summary judgment for defendants.
- The Court of Appeal reversed.
- The state supreme court granted review limited to the scope of § 47(3) as applied to mass media communications.

## Issues

1. Whether California Civil Code § 47(3) creates a broad “public-interest privilege” for news media broadcasts to the general public about a private person, requiring the plaintiff to prove malice to recover compensatory damages.
2. Whether a generalized audience interest in news satisfies § 47(3)’s “common interest” requirement for privileged communications.

## Decision

- The court held that a news media publication or broadcast to the general public about a private person is not privileged under Civil Code § 47(3), even if it concerns a matter of public interest.
- The court rejected the theory that the media and the public share the type of “common interest” contemplated by § 47(3) merely because the public is interested in the subject.
- The court concluded that § 47(3) does not require a private-person plaintiff to prove malice to recover compensatory damages based on a media broadcast.
- The court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment reversing summary judgment, allowing the defamation action to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Civil Code § 47(3) creates a qualified privilege for communications made without malice between persons who share a defined, reciprocal common interest; it is not a license for unrestricted communications to the public at large.
- A generalized public interest in receiving news does not establish the “common interest” relationship required for § 47(3)’s privilege.
- Courts will not infer a media-specific “public-interest privilege” from § 47(3) absent clear statutory language.
- Statutory privileges under § 47(3) are distinct from constitutional fault standards; § 47(3) cannot be used to impose an across-the-board malice requirement on private-person plaintiffs seeking compensatory damages.

## Conclusion

California’s qualified “common interest” privilege does not shield news media from defamation liability for false statements about private individuals published to the general public, and private plaintiffs are not required by Civil Code § 47(3) to prove malice to obtain compensatory damages.


Brown v. Kelly Broad. Co., 48 Cal. 3d 711, 771 P.2d 406 (Cal. 1989)