Facts
- Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., through its newspapers, published more than fifty articles, editorials, and columns about the Maricopa County Sheriff and members of the Sheriff’s Office.
- The publications asserted, among other things, that plaintiffs engaged in illegal activity, staged narcotics arrests for publicity, made illegal arrests, misused public resources, committed police brutality, and were incompetent.
- The sheriff and various deputies and employees sued, alleging the publications were false and caused reputational and emotional harm.
- The complaint included claims for libel and for false light invasion of privacy.
Issues
- Whether Arizona recognizes a common-law cause of action for false light invasion of privacy.
- If recognized, what elements and fault standard govern false light claims, including constitutional limits when the defendant is the media.
- Whether public officials may sue for false light based on publications about their performance of official duties.
Decision
- Arizona recognized the tort of false light invasion of privacy, generally adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E subject to First Amendment limits.
- The court held that, for public officials and matters of public concern, liability requires proof of constitutional “actual malice” (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard).
- The court further held that public officials may not maintain a false light claim when the publication concerns their official duties and performance in office; reputational remedies in that setting lie in defamation.
- The court vacated the court of appeals’ opinion and left plaintiffs to proceed, if at all, on their defamation claims.
Legal Principles
- False light invasion of privacy applies when a defendant publicizes matter placing a person before the public in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- False light requires proof that the defendant knew the matter was false or acted with reckless disregard as to falsity and the false impression created.
- When the plaintiff is a public official and the publication concerns matters of public concern, the New York Times actual malice standard applies.
- Public officials cannot use false light to obtain recovery for publications about their performance of official duties; such claims are governed by defamation rules and First Amendment protections.
- False light may remain available to public officials for publications about private life, subject to the tort’s elements and constitutional limitations.
Conclusion
Arizona adopted false light invasion of privacy but limited its use against the press by holding that public officials cannot recover under false light for publications addressing their official conduct; claims for allegedly false reporting about job performance must proceed, if at all, under defamation law with constitutional fault requirements.