## Facts

- Loew’s, Inc. (defendant) distributed a motion picture portraying the life of composer Robert Schumann, including his mental illness and death.
- Four individuals claiming to be Schumann’s great-grandchildren (plaintiffs) sued Loew’s in the New York Supreme Court.
- Plaintiffs alleged Loew’s distributed and exhibited the film without their consent.
- Plaintiffs claimed the film could cause viewers to infer that the plaintiffs shared Schumann’s mental illness, harming them by association.
- Plaintiffs framed the case as an invasion of their right to privacy, asserting that the right was violated not only in New York but “in every state in the United States and in every country in the world.”
- Plaintiffs did not set out facts or authority showing that a right of privacy was recognized in the many jurisdictions they invoked, or what legal standards applied there.
- Loew’s moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs may maintain claims based on alleged violations of a right of privacy in numerous U.S. states and foreign countries without pleading that those jurisdictions recognize such a right and what its content is.
2. Whether a New York court should presume that a right of privacy exists everywhere, comparable to New York’s privacy protection under Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51.

## Decision

- The court granted Loew’s motion to dismiss to the extent the complaint relied on generalized assertions that a right of privacy existed “in every state” and “in every country,” without pleading the applicable out-of-state or foreign law.
- The court declined to presume that a privacy right exists universally or mirrors New York’s statutory approach.
- Because plaintiffs did not plead the existence and scope of the alleged privacy right in the many jurisdictions identified, the complaint failed, at least in that respect, to state a legally sufficient claim.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff relying on out-of-state or foreign law must plead (and ultimately prove) that the claimed right exists in the referenced jurisdiction and identify the substance of that law.
- New York courts will not assume that another jurisdiction recognizes the same privacy protections that New York provides by statute (Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51).
- A statutory right of privacy is not treated as a basic, universal legal norm that can be presumed to exist in all jurisdictions without pleading and support.
- Broad jurisdiction-spanning allegations (“every state” and “every country”) do not state a claim when they omit the legal source of the right, its elements, and how defendant’s conduct violates those elements under each jurisdiction’s law.

## Conclusion

Schumann v. Loew’s Inc. rejected plaintiffs’ attempt to plead a worldwide right-to-privacy claim in conclusory terms: without alleging that other jurisdictions recognize a privacy right and what that right requires, a New York court will not assume such a right exists and will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim to that extent.


Schumann v. Loew's Inc., 135 N.Y.S.2d 361 (1954)