## Facts

- Harold A. Lovgren obtained a second mortgage on his farm from Citizens First National Bank of Princeton in 1983.
- After Lovgren fell behind on obligations, bank agents urged him to sell the farm; he refused and asked for more time.
- In November 1985, newspaper advertisements and handbills announced that Lovgren’s farm would be sold at a public auction on November 25, 1985, identifying Lovgren as the seller.
- No auction had been scheduled, and the notices were placed without Lovgren’s knowledge or consent.
- Lovgren alleged the false public auction notices embarrassed him and harmed his credit and standing in the community, constituting an invasion of privacy.

## Issues

1. Whether publishing unauthorized, false auction notices identifying the plaintiff as seller states a claim for invasion of privacy under Illinois law.
2. If so, whether the alleged conduct fits the tort of intrusion upon seclusion or the tort of publicity placing a person in a false light.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court held the complaint did not state a claim for intrusion upon seclusion.
- The Court held the allegations did state a claim for false-light invasion of privacy (publicity placing a person in a false light).
- The circuit court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim was reversed.
- The appellate court’s reversal and remand were affirmed as to the result, but the portion characterizing the claim as intrusion upon seclusion was vacated.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Intrusion upon seclusion requires an intentional, highly offensive intrusion—physical or otherwise—into a plaintiff’s private solitude, seclusion, or private affairs; it targets offensive prying rather than public communication.
- False-light invasion of privacy occurs when a defendant gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the person before the public in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- False-light liability also requires the defendant to have acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth and the false light created.
- Public dissemination that creates a misleading implication about a plaintiff (even if not classic defamation) may be actionable as false light when the required offensiveness and fault are plausibly alleged.

## Conclusion

Unauthorized public advertisements falsely stating that a mortgagor is selling property at auction are not “intrusion” because they do not involve prying into private affairs, but they can support a false-light privacy claim when the publicity plausibly portrays the person in a highly offensive, misleading way and is published with knowledge or reckless disregard of falsity; the complaint therefore should not have been dismissed.


Lovgren v. Citizens First Nat'l Bank of Princeton, 126 Ill. 2d 411, 534 N.E.2d 987 (Ill. 1989)