## Facts

- Robyn Douglass was an actress and model who appeared nude multiple times in *Playboy*, did television commercials, and acted in films.
- Douglass posed nude on two occasions for photographer Augustin Gregory for photo spreads intended for *Playboy*.
- Gregory later showed Hustler Magazine, Inc. nude photographs of Douglass during discussions about becoming Hustler’s photography editor.
- Gregory provided Hustler with two purported releases, one for each photo shoot.
- The parties stipulated that a handwriting expert would testify that one of Douglass’s signatures on a release was forged and that the other signature could not be authenticated.
- Hustler published the photos in an issue featuring nude photographs that had been intended for *Playboy*.
- The layout included two photographs depicting Douglass straddling another woman in a sexual pose.
- Hustler also printed a quotation attributed to Douglass about looking through a script to find “climactic moments,” and added a caption: “From the looks of Robyn, she’s never had difficulty finding climactic moments.”
- Douglass claimed the publication suggested she was a lesbian and suggested she willingly posed for Hustler, which she testified was degrading and damaging to her professional reputation.
- Douglass offered evidence that, after the Hustler publication, advertising agencies no longer wanted her for commercials, even though they had not objected to her prior nude *Playboy* appearances.
- A jury found for Douglass and awarded damages totaling $600,000. Hustler appealed the judgment; Douglass cross-appealed the trial court’s reduction of punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether Hustler’s use of Douglass’s nude photographs and accompanying text could support liability for false-light invasion of privacy under Illinois law by implying she voluntarily posed for Hustler and by insinuating she was a lesbian.
2. Whether Douglass’s prior nude modeling for *Playboy* barred her from claiming that appearance in Hustler could be “highly offensive” or professionally harmful.
3. Whether the First Amendment barred or limited liability for Hustler’s publication, given the magazine’s status as a press outlet and Douglass’s public exposure as an actress/model.
4. Whether the district court committed reversible error in evidentiary rulings, instructions, or other trial-management decisions affecting liability or damages.
5. Whether the trial court properly reduced the jury’s punitive-damages award (the subject of Douglass’s cross-appeal).

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment imposing liability on Hustler for invasion of privacy based on false light.
- The court held the jury could find that Hustler’s presentation conveyed a false and objectionable implication that Douglass had agreed to appear in Hustler and that she was being portrayed in a degrading sexualized manner, including an insinuation of lesbianism.
- The court rejected Hustler’s argument that Douglass’s prior nude appearances in *Playboy* made it impossible, as a matter of law, for Hustler’s publication to be highly offensive or damaging; the jury could distinguish *Playboy* from Hustler and could credit evidence of real career harm tied to the Hustler association.
- The court concluded that Hustler was not entitled to constitutional immunity where the claim rested on a false implication about Douglass’s consent and association with the magazine, not simply the publication of nude images as such.
- The court found no reversible trial error warranting a new trial.
- On Douglass’s cross-appeal, the court upheld the district court’s handling of punitive damages, leaving the post-trial reduction in place.

## Legal Principles

- False-light invasion of privacy may be proven when a publication places a person before the public in a false position that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- Truthful materials (including genuine photographs) can still support false-light liability when the overall presentation—photos, captions, and surrounding text—communicates a misleading implication about the subject.
- Prior consent to pose nude, or prior nude publication in a different magazine, does not automatically amount to consent to publication in another outlet or to being portrayed as voluntarily associated with that outlet.
- In privacy and media cases, the First Amendment does not bar liability for materially false implications about an identifiable person’s consent or conduct, even when the subject matter is sexual.
- Punitive damages remain subject to judicial review and reduction when the trial court finds the jury’s punitive award exceeds what the evidence and governing standards allow.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld a jury verdict that Hustler placed actress-model Robyn Douglass in a highly offensive false light by publishing nude photographs and captions implying she willingly posed for Hustler and insinuating lesbianism, and it affirmed the trial court’s post-trial adjustment of punitive damages while leaving the liability finding intact.


Douglass v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 769 F.2d 1128 (1985)