Florida Supreme Court Rejects the Cause of Action for False Light Invasion of Privacy
False light invasion of privacy is a tort often confused with defamation. In fact, some states think the two are so similar that they are lumped together in the eyes of the law. The premise behind false light is that private citizens have the right to “protect themselves from publicity, which puts them in a ‘false light.’” Until 2008, it had not been definitively decided whether Florida recognized false light as a separate tort or lumped it together with defamation.
Florida Supreme Court Weighs In
In Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2008), the plaintiff alleged that the defendant, Jews for Jesus, falsely and without her permission, stated she had joined the organization and become a believer in its tenets. The plaintiff sued the group for false light invasion of privacy, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent training and supervision, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
However, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s case. On appeal, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the defamation claim, but, “because of uncertainty in this area of the law,” certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether Florida recognizes the tort of false light.
Answering the question in the negative, the Florida Supreme Court held that Florida does not recognize a cause of action for false light invasion of privacy but does recognize defamation by implication. The Court further held that a communication can be defamatory if it prejudices the plaintiff in the eyes of a substantial and respectable minority of the community.
As enumerated by the Florida Supreme Court in Jews For Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, the five required elements of a claim for defamation are:
- publication;
- falsity;
- actor must act with knowledge or reckless disregard as to the falsity on a matter concerning a public official, or at least negligently on a matter concerning a private person;
- actual damages; and
- statement must be defamatory.
Such defamation may take the form of spoken words, a written statement, or an implication. “Slander” is ordinarily confined to defamatory spoken words, whereas “libel” pertains to defamatory written statements.
“Defamation by implication” involves many situations that some other states call a “false light invasion of privacy,” with false light being a separate tort, which according to the Court’s holding in Jews For Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, is not recognized in Florida.
Take Away
Arguably, Jews for Jesus v. Rapp changed existing law by encompassing libel and slander into a single action called defamation. However, the idea that libel and slander may be viewed in combination is not new to Florida jurisprudence. “Defamation (libel and slander) may generally be defined as the unprivileged publication of false statements which naturally and proximately result in injury to another.” Wolfson v. Kirk, 273 So. 2d 774, 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).
A false statement of fact “is the sine qua non for recovery in a defamation action.” Byrd v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 433 So. 2d 593, 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). A sine qua non is Latin for an essential condition or a thing that is absolutely necessary. In other words, a false statement of fact is necessary for a defamation claim.
It is in light of this requirement that we can better understand and define the five elements of a cause of action for defamation that are given to us by the Supreme Court’s decision in Jews for Jesus v. Rapp: (1) publication; (2) falsity; (3) actor must act with knowledge or reckless disregard as to the falsity on a matter concerning a public official, or at least negligently on a matter concerning a private person; (4) actual damages; and (5) statement must be defamatory.