## Facts

- Jose Solano, Jr., a television actor, appeared on the January 1999 cover of *Playgirl* in a promotional photo: bare-chested, wearing red lifeguard trunks associated with his on-screen role.
- The cover placed Solano’s image next to prominently sexualized headlines, including “PRIMETIME’S SEXY YOUNG STARS EXPOSED” and “12 SIZZLING CENTERFOLDS READY TO SCORE WITH YOU,” in a magazine known for nude male centerfolds.
- Inside the issue, Solano appeared only once in a small, fully clothed head-and-shoulders photograph accompanying a short profile.
- Solano did not pose for the magazine, did not consent to use of his image, and did not appear nude in the issue.
- Solano alleged the cover presentation created the false impression that he posed nude or participated in (and endorsed) the magazine’s sexually explicit content, causing humiliation and professional and reputational harm.
- Evidence included testimony suggesting editorial direction to imply nudity and staff concerns that the cover’s layout and headlines could mislead readers about Solano’s participation.

## Issues

1. Whether the cover’s image and headlines could reasonably convey a false implication that Solano appeared nude or participated in sexually explicit content, supporting false light invasion of privacy under California law.
2. Whether the implied portrayal could be found “highly offensive” and reputationally injurious to a reasonable person in Solano’s position.
3. Whether, as a public figure, Solano produced sufficient evidence of actual malice—knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the false implication—to survive summary judgment.
4. Whether the same facts could support appropriation of likeness and related California law claims sufficient to proceed to trial.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Playgirl and remanded.
- The court held a reasonable jury could find the cover created a false implication that Solano posed nude or otherwise participated in the magazine’s explicit content.
- The court held a reasonable jury could find the implied association highly offensive and harmful to Solano’s reputation in light of his public image.
- The court held Solano presented enough evidence to create a triable issue on actual malice, including evidence of intent to imply nudity and awareness of the risk of misleading implication.
- The court concluded triable issues likewise existed on Solano’s related personality and privacy claims based on the same publication context.

## Legal Principles

- False light liability may rest on a publication’s overall implication; literal truth of isolated facts does not defeat a claim if the presentation creates a materially false impression.
- Under California false light, the plaintiff must show publication placing the plaintiff before the public in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and that tends to injure reputation, with resulting damages.
- When the plaintiff is a public figure, the plaintiff must also prove actual malice—knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard—by clear and convincing evidence.
- Context matters: visual presentation, surrounding headlines, and the publication’s known content can support an inference about what readers would reasonably understand.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that *Playgirl*’s cover design could reasonably imply Jose Solano posed nude or endorsed sexually explicit content, and that evidence of editorial intent and internal concerns created triable issues on offensiveness and actual malice; summary judgment was therefore improper and the case was remanded for trial.


Solano v. Playgirl, Inc., 292 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2002)