## Facts

- A Chattanooga television station aired a multi-part investigative report about Charmaine West and her private probation services company’s relationship with the Hamilton County General Sessions Court and a particular judge.
- The plaintiffs’ business provided private probation services and received referrals from the general sessions courts.
- Plaintiffs alleged the broadcasts falsely stated their business was illegal (defamation claim).
- West alleged the broadcasts implied an improper “cozy” relationship with the judge, including an implication of a sexual relationship (false light invasion of privacy claim).
- In federal district court, the defendant moved to dismiss the false light claim on the ground that Tennessee did not recognize the tort.
- The federal district court certified to the Tennessee Supreme Court the question whether Tennessee recognizes false light invasion of privacy and, if so, its elements and limits.

## Issues

1. Whether Tennessee recognizes false light invasion of privacy as a distinct tort.
2. If recognized, what elements define false light invasion of privacy under Tennessee law, including the required level of fault in media cases.
3. Whether a false light plaintiff must specifically plead and prove actual damages rather than rely on presumed damages.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court answered the certified question by holding that Tennessee recognizes the tort of false light invasion of privacy.
- The court adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E as the basic statement of the tort’s elements, subject to modifications described in the opinion.
- The court required that constitutional constraints applicable to speech, drawn from Tennessee’s defamation jurisprudence, apply to false light claims against media defendants involving matters of public concern.
- The court held that false light plaintiffs must specifically plead and prove actual damages.
- The case was returned to federal district court for further proceedings consistent with these holdings.

## Legal Principles

- Tennessee recognizes false light invasion of privacy and generally follows Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E.
- A defendant is liable for false light if it gives publicity to a matter placing the plaintiff before the public in a false light when:
  - the false light would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and
  - the defendant acted with the requisite fault regarding falsity and the false impression (at minimum incorporating First Amendment limits applicable to private plaintiffs suing media defendants).
- False light requires “publicity,” not merely communication to one person or a small group.
- False light protects privacy interests and may reach misleading portrayals that are not strictly defamatory, but it is constrained to prevent end-runs around defamation protections.
- Plaintiffs must specifically plead and prove actual damages; recoverable harms may include injury to standing in the community, humiliation, and emotional distress, and need not be limited to out-of-pocket loss.

## Conclusion

Tennessee recognizes false light invasion of privacy, grounding the tort in Restatement § 652E while importing constitutional fault limitations and requiring proof of actual damages, thereby aligning false light remedies with Tennessee’s speech-protective defamation standards.


West v. Media Gen. Convergence, Inc., 53 S.W.3d 640 (Tenn. 2001)