## Facts

- The National Enquirer published a front-page story promoted as an “Exclusive Interview” with Clint Eastwood, with a headline about his life and career.
- The article used an Enquirer byline and narrative cues implying the writer spoke directly with Eastwood and was quoting him from a recent interview.
- Eastwood had not granted any interview to the Enquirer; the piece was compiled from prior statements Eastwood made to other outlets and sources.
- Eastwood alleged the harm was the false impression that he cooperated with, and thereby endorsed or was affiliated with, a sensational tabloid.
- Eastwood sued under Lanham Act § 43(a) for false endorsement/false association and under California statutory and common-law right of publicity/privacy theories.
- A jury returned a verdict for Eastwood and awarded $150,000, divided between reputational injury and unjust enrichment.
- The district court awarded Eastwood $653,156 in attorney’s fees but denied certain requested costs, including expert witness fees.
- The Enquirer appealed liability and fees; Eastwood cross-appealed the denial of certain costs.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported a finding of “actual malice” where the publication represented an “exclusive interview” despite no interview occurring.
2. Whether the “exclusive interview” presentation could support Lanham Act § 43(a) liability for false association or endorsement likely to cause consumer confusion.
3. Whether the publication constituted misappropriation of Eastwood’s identity under California Civil Code § 3344 and common-law privacy/publicity doctrines, consistent with First Amendment limits.
4. Whether the damages award, attorney’s fee award, and denial of certain costs (including expert fees) were legally proper.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Eastwood on liability and affirmed the $150,000 damages award.
- The court held the evidence permitted a jury to find falsity and actual malice because the Enquirer presented a fabricated “exclusive interview” format while knowing no interview occurred or recklessly disregarding that fact.
- The court affirmed Lanham Act § 43(a) liability based on the misleading suggestion that Eastwood personally cooperated with or endorsed the Enquirer.
- The court affirmed liability under California statutory and common-law publicity/privacy theories, rejecting First Amendment defenses where the publication falsely implied Eastwood’s participation and endorsement.
- The court affirmed the attorney’s fees award.
- On cross-appeal, the court largely affirmed the denial of the disputed costs, including expert witness fees, absent specific statutory authorization beyond ordinary taxable costs.

## Legal Principles

- A public figure may recover for reputational injury from a publication only upon proof of actual malice: knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.
- A publication’s representation that it obtained an “exclusive interview” can be treated as a verifiable factual claim when the format and language assert direct interaction that did not occur.
- Lanham Act § 43(a) reaches false suggestions of celebrity sponsorship, approval, or association when the presentation is likely to cause consumer confusion about endorsement or affiliation.
- California Civil Code § 3344 and related common-law doctrines can impose liability for unauthorized commercial use of a person’s identity where the use functions as misappropriation or false endorsement rather than protected reporting.
- Attorney’s fees may be awarded under applicable fee-shifting provisions based on the nature of the violation and the district court’s discretionary assessment; expert witness fees and non-taxable costs generally require explicit statutory authorization.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld verdict and fees against a tabloid that packaged compiled statements as an “exclusive interview,” holding that the fabricated interview format could support actual-malice findings and impose liability for false endorsement under the Lanham Act and for misappropriation under California publicity and privacy law, while limiting recoverable costs absent statutory authority.


Eastwood v. Nat'l Enquirer, Inc., 123 F.3d 1249 (9th Cir. 1997)