## Facts

- A newspaper published a multi-page feature titled “Denver’s Biggest Crime Family,” describing criminal activity and other troubles involving members of the Bueno family.
- The article included a “family tree” with photos of family members; the caption under Manuel Edward (“Eddie”) Bueno’s photo identified him as the oldest child.
- The article’s theme and presentation, according to Eddie, implied he shared the criminal propensities attributed to other family members.
- Eddie had left the family when young, served in the Army, and maintained a successful work history.
- The reporter attempted to contact Eddie several times; he did not return the calls.
- Eddie sued the newspaper for defamation and for invasion of privacy by false light.

## Issues

1. Whether Colorado recognizes a cause of action for false light invasion of privacy based on publicity that unreasonably places a person in a false light before the public.
2. If false light is not recognized, what becomes of a judgment entered solely on that theory and the plaintiff’s ability to pursue relief under defamation.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court declined to recognize false light invasion of privacy as a cognizable tort under Colorado law.
- The court reversed the judgment that had upheld the jury’s false-light verdict for Eddie and the damages award.
- The court remanded for consideration of Eddie’s cross-appeal challenging the trial court’s directed verdict for the newspaper on the defamation claim.

## Legal Principles

- Colorado does not recognize false light invasion of privacy as an independent tort.
- False light was rejected as substantially duplicative of defamation because both target reputational harm arising from false statements or misleading implications.
- The “highly offensive to a reasonable person” element was deemed too subjective and was viewed as creating undue risk of chilling speech and press activity protected by the First Amendment.
- Plaintiffs alleging reputational injury from false or misleading publication must seek relief through established causes of action, including defamation, rather than false light.

## Conclusion

The court eliminated false light invasion of privacy as a standalone claim in Colorado, vacated a jury verdict based on that theory, and sent the case back for further appellate review of whether the plaintiff could proceed under defamation.


Denver Publ’g Co. v. Bueno, 54 P.3d 893 (Colo. 2002)