## Facts

- Plaintiffs were retail credit customers whose accounts became delinquent and alleged that the creditor used third-party contacts to coerce payment.
- The creditor sent a form letter to each plaintiff’s employer concerning the debt.
- The creditor also telephoned several relatives: one plaintiff’s mother multiple times and three relatives of the other plaintiff.
- There were no allegations that the calls were made at inconvenient hours or were abusive in tone, but the debt was discussed with the third parties.
- The trial court found the creditor knew plaintiffs’ whereabouts when it contacted third parties and entered an injunction barring third-party contact except to locate a debtor who concealed their whereabouts.
- The appellate court (en banc) affirmed the injunction; the creditor appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether contacting a debtor’s employer and a small number of relatives and discussing the debt constitutes an actionable invasion of privacy under the “publicity given to private life” theory.
2. Whether such limited communications satisfy the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D requirements of “publicity” and “highly offensive” disclosure.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the injunction and held plaintiffs failed to prove an actionable invasion of privacy.
- The court approved the Restatement (Second) of Torts framework recognizing four privacy torts (§ 652A) and applied § 652D to the claim asserted.
- The court held the communications to an employer and a few relatives were not “publicity” as required by § 652D.
- The court also found the scope and manner of the communications did not meet the “highly offensive to a reasonable person” threshold.

## Legal Principles

- Pennsylvania recognizes invasion of privacy as an actionable tort and applies the Restatement (Second) of Torts taxonomy (§§ 652A–652D).
- Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D, liability requires (1) “publicity” about private life (communication to the public at large or to so many persons that it is substantially certain to become public knowledge) and (2) disclosure that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- Disclosure of a debt to a small, discrete audience (such as an employer and a few relatives) generally does not constitute “publicity” for § 652D purposes.
- Even if the creditor’s motive is questioned, third-party debt-collection contact is not actionable under § 652D absent both the required level of dissemination and a highly offensive character judged by an objective, reasonable-person standard.

## Conclusion

The court held that a creditor’s limited disclosure of a debtor’s delinquency to an employer and a few relatives, without abusive or broadly disseminated communications, does not amount to “publicity given to private life” and is not highly offensive under Restatement § 652D; therefore, the injunction was reversed.


Vogel v. W.T. Grant Co., 458 Pa. 124, 327 A.2d 133 (Pa. 1974)