## Facts

- Elli Lake (19) and Melissa Weber (20) had film developed at a Wal-Mart photo lab in Dilworth, Minnesota.
- The film included an intimate photograph showing Lake and Weber nude in a shower, taken during a Mexico trip.
- Wal-Mart returned the developed photographs and negatives with a notice that one or more photographs were not printed because of their “nature.”
- Over subsequent months, Lake and Weber learned that copies of the nude photograph had been shown by a Wal-Mart employee and were circulating in their community.
- Lake and Weber sued Wal-Mart and unidentified employees, alleging four privacy torts: intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation, publication of private facts, and false light.
- Wal-Mart moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, asserting Minnesota did not recognize common-law invasion of privacy.

## Issues

1. Whether Minnesota should recognize any of the four Restatement privacy torts: intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation, publication of private facts, and false light.
2. If recognized, whether the complaint alleged facts sufficient to state claims that survive a Rule 12 dismissal.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court held Minnesota recognizes three privacy torts: intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation, and publication of private facts.
- The court declined to recognize false light publicity.
- The court reversed the dismissal of the intrusion, appropriation, and publication-of-private-facts claims and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the false light claim.

## Legal Principles

- Minnesota common law recognizes causes of action for: (1) intrusion upon seclusion, (2) appropriation of name or likeness, and (3) publicity given to private life (publication of private facts).
- False light is not a recognized tort in Minnesota, in part due to overlap with defamation and concerns about burdens on protected expression.
- On a motion to dismiss, the court accepts pleaded facts as true and asks whether they state a legally cognizable claim.
- Nonconsensual dissemination of an intimate, non-newsworthy image may support claims for intrusion and publication of private facts; alleged exploitation of identity may support appropriation, depending on proof developed on remand.

## Conclusion

Minnesota adopted three Restatement invasion-of-privacy torts while rejecting false light, and it allowed plaintiffs alleging employee circulation of an intimate photograph obtained through photo processing to proceed past dismissal on intrusion, appropriation, and publication-of-private-facts theories.


Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. 1998)