## Facts

- A newspaper reporter published two articles describing a 1967 infant abandonment and subsequent adoption in North Carolina.
- The first article recounted the abandonment and the biological mother’s later efforts to locate the child.
- A second article reported the child had been located, identified Susie Hall and her adoptive mother, Mary Hall, by name, and described an emotional telephone call between the adoptive mother and the biological mother.
- Plaintiffs stipulated the articles’ factual statements were true.
- Plaintiffs alleged the publicity caused unwanted public attention, led them to leave their home temporarily, and resulted in psychiatric treatment for emotional distress.
- Plaintiffs sued the reporter and publisher for invasion of privacy based on public disclosure of private facts.

## Issues

1. Whether North Carolina recognizes a common-law tort for invasion of privacy based on truthful public disclosure of private facts.
2. Whether North Carolina recognizes “false light” invasion of privacy as a separate tort theory.

## Decision

- The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated summary judgment for defendants.
- The court held that North Carolina does not recognize a cause of action for invasion of privacy based on truthful publication of private facts.
- The court reaffirmed that North Carolina does not recognize “false light” invasion of privacy.

## Legal Principles

- North Carolina recognizes invasion of privacy primarily in the form of appropriation of a person’s name or likeness for another’s advantage; it does not recognize private-facts or false-light theories.
- Courts should be cautious in creating new torts that would impose liability for truthful speech because such claims directly conflict with constitutional protections for speech and press.
- Where a plaintiff’s alleged injury from publication is emotional distress, existing tort doctrines (such as intentional infliction of emotional distress) are the appropriate vehicles, if any, rather than a separate private-facts privacy tort.

## Conclusion

The court rejected private-facts and false-light invasion-of-privacy claims under North Carolina law and, given the truthfulness of the publications and constitutional concerns, reinstated summary judgment for the reporter and newspaper.


Hall v. Post, 323 N.C. 259, 372 S.E.2d 711 (N.C. 1988)