## Facts

- Russell Christoff, an actor and model, posed in a 1986 photo shoot arranged for a coffee label and was paid $250.
- Christoff signed a model release, but the scope of authorized use (territory and duration) was disputed.
- Nestlé USA began using Christoff’s photograph on Taster’s Choice instant coffee labels around 1997 and used the design for about five years on millions of labels distributed in multiple countries.
- In 2002, Christoff saw a jar bearing his image in a U.S. store and claimed he had not previously known of the label use.
- Christoff sued for appropriation of likeness more than two years after first label use but less than a year after discovery.
- The trial court rejected applying the single-publication rule, instructed the jury using a two-year limitations period and discovery rule, and the jury found Christoff neither knew nor reasonably should have suspected the use before 2002; damages exceeded $15 million.
- The Court of Appeal held the single-publication rule applies, reversed as time-barred unless there was hindrance of discovery or republication, and remanded on those issues.

## Issues

1. Whether California’s single-publication rule applies to appropriation-of-likeness (right of publicity/privacy) claims based on mass-produced product labels.
2. If the single-publication rule applies, what factual determinations are required to decide accrual, possible republication, and the statute-of-limitations defense.
3. Whether the trial court’s refusal to apply the single-publication rule required reversal, and what the proper scope of remand should be.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held the single-publication rule applies to appropriation-of-likeness claims, and the trial court erred by ruling otherwise.
- The Court reversed the judgment for Christoff.
- The Court remanded for further proceedings because the record had not been developed on whether Nestlé’s conduct constituted a single publication or multiple publications/republications.
- The Court rejected treating the claim as necessarily time-barred on the existing record and required fact-finding on publication timing and any republication before resolving limitations.

## Legal Principles

- California’s single-publication statute applies to actions founded on a single publication and is not limited to defamation; it can apply to invasion of privacy and right of publicity claims.
- The rule aims to prevent multiple causes of action and repeated limitations periods arising from mass distribution of substantially the same content.
- For a mass-distributed work, accrual generally runs from the first general distribution to the public, not from each individual sale or copy.
- A republication (such as a new edition, material change, or distribution aimed at a new audience) may create a new cause of action and a new limitations period.
- Whether a defendant’s use is one publication or multiple publications/republications is fact-dependent and may require evidence about printing, distribution, changes to the material, and distinct dissemination events.

## Conclusion

The court held that appropriation-of-likeness claims based on mass-produced product labels are subject to California’s single-publication rule, reversed a plaintiff’s verdict obtained under contrary jury instructions, and remanded for development of a record and fact-finding on publication, any republication, and the resulting statute-of-limitations analysis.


Christoff v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 47 Cal. 4th 468 (Cal. 2009)