Suing For Privacy Violations: California Lawsuit Guide

Privacy laws in California are governed by the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) and the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA), which was later amended by the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA). CIPA makes it illegal to record confidential conversations without the consent of everyone involved, and victims can sue for statutory damages. The California Consumer Privacy Act, on the other hand, gives consumers the right to know what information businesses have collected about them, and they can request that businesses delete their data.

Illegal recording of conversations

California has strict privacy laws that protect its citizens from illegal recording of conversations. The state is a “two-party consent” state, which means that it is illegal to record a private conversation unless all parties consent to the recording. This applies to both in-person conversations and telephone calls, including those made using cellular or cordless phones. The law specifically excludes conversations in public places, government proceedings open to the public, or where participants could reasonably expect to be overheard or recorded.

If someone violates California's privacy laws by recording a conversation without consent, they can face criminal penalties, including fines of up to $2,500 or imprisonment for up to one year for a first offense. Subsequent offenses carry a maximum fine of $10,000 and a jail sentence of up to one year. Additionally, victims of illegal recordings can also seek civil remedies, such as recovering civil damages of $5,000 or three times the actual damages, whichever is greater.

To prove an invasion of privacy lawsuit in California, you will need to demonstrate the following:

• Someone intentionally used an electronic device to eavesdrop or record a conversation.
• You had a reasonable expectation of privacy, meaning that you expected the conversation to be private and not recorded or overheard.
• The defendant failed to obtain the consent of all parties involved in the conversation.
• You suffered harm as a result of the illegal recording.
• The harm you experienced was caused by the defendant's actions.

It is important to note that there is a statute of limitations for invasion of privacy lawsuits in California. You must file your civil lawsuit within one year of the date of the illegal recording.

Public disclosure of private facts

California law recognises a legal claim for the public disclosure of private facts. This is defined as:

• A public disclosure of
• Private facts about an individual
• That would offend the average person
• That was not of legitimate public concern
• Where the defendant published private facts with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.

To prove a claim for public disclosure of private facts, a plaintiff must show that:

• The defendant publicized private information concerning the plaintiff
• A reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would consider the publicity highly offensive
• The defendant knew, or acted with reckless disregard of the fact, that a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would consider the publicity highly offensive
• The private information was not of legitimate public concern or did not have a substantial connection to a matter of legitimate public concern
• The plaintiff was harmed
• The defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm

In deciding whether the information was a matter of legitimate public concern, the following factors should be considered:

• The social value of the information
• The extent of the intrusion into the plaintiff's privacy
• Whether the plaintiff consented to the publicity explicitly or by voluntarily seeking public attention or a public office
• Other applicable factors

The statute of limitations for a claim of public disclosure of private facts in California is one year from the date of disclosure.

Damages that a plaintiff may recover in these actions include compensation for:

• Loss of reputation, shame and hurt feelings
• Damage to the plaintiff's trade or occupation
• Loss of business income resulting from the disclosure
• Loss of consortium for their spouse
• Damages for any physical injury

Intrusion into private affairs

In California, the tort of "Intrusion into Private Affairs" refers to situations in which a person's real or virtual private space is invaded.

For a claim of intrusion of privacy to succeed, it must be proven that:

• The plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a particular place or other circumstances.
• The defendant intentionally intruded in that place or circumstance.
• The intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
• The plaintiff was harmed.
• The defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm.

In deciding whether the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy, factors such as the identity of the defendant, the extent to which other persons had access to the place or information, and the means by which the intrusion occurred should be considered.

For example, in Taus v. Loftus, the court allowed an intrusion claim where the defendant misrepresented his relationship with the plaintiff to obtain private information from her foster mother.

Additionally, California courts have recognized a more expansive definition of intrusion, which includes situations involving the use of deception to obtain private information.

It is important to note that being in full public view eliminates any reasonable expectation of privacy. California courts have upheld the right to photograph a public figure, even if they are on private property, as long as the subject is in full public view.

To establish an intrusion claim, it must be proven that the defendant intended to intrude on the seclusion of another. This means that the defendant must have desired or intended to cause the consequences of their actions or believed that the consequences were substantially likely to follow.

In summary, the tort of "Intrusion into Private Affairs" in California law provides protection for individuals whose private space or information has been intentionally invaded in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, causing them harm.

Misappropriation of name and likeness

In California, the right to privacy is a recognised legal concept, with the state's laws providing citizens with the right to act and live without government interference, except in cases of unreasonable behaviour. The state's laws also protect citizens from public interference in private matters and the use of their matters or images publicly without their consent.

In California, the right to privacy is protected by both statutory law and common law. The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) and the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA) are examples of statutory laws that protect the right to privacy.

The misappropriation of name and likeness is a type of invasion of privacy that occurs when someone uses another person's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness for commercial purposes without their consent. This can include using someone's identity in advertising or promotion without their permission.

To establish a claim for misappropriation of name or likeness in California, a plaintiff must typically prove the following elements:

• The defendant used the plaintiff's identity.
• The defendant used the plaintiff's name or likeness for their own advantage, commercially or otherwise.
• The defendant did not have the plaintiff's consent.
• The use of the plaintiff's identity resulted in injury or damage.

It is important to note that the definition of "likeness" is not always clear and may be interpreted broadly by courts. For example, courts have held that drawings or robots can constitute a likeness if they are sufficiently detailed to be associated with the plaintiff.

In California, a plaintiff can pursue claims for violations of both the common law and statutory law. The statutory law, California Civil Code Section 3344, provides specific protections for a person's likeness, signature, and photograph. The statute imposes a three-step test to determine whether a violation has occurred:

• Was there a "knowing" use of the plaintiff's protected identity?
• Was the use for advertising or commercial purposes?
• Was there a direct connection between the use and the commercial purpose?

If all three questions are answered in the affirmative, then a violation of the statute has occurred.

Damages for misappropriation of name or likeness can include actual damages suffered, the defendant's profits attributable to the use, punitive damages, and attorney's fees.

False and offensive statements

In California, false light is a form of invasion of privacy for which you can pursue a civil claim. A false light claim exists when an individual or business publishes offensive information about you and implies that it is true, when it is actually false.

To win a false light lawsuit, you must prove the following:

• The defendant publicly disclosed information or material that painted you in a false light.
• The false light created by the disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in your position.
• There is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant knew the disclosure would create a false impression about you, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth, or was negligent in determining the truth of the information or whether a false impression would be created by its disclosure.
• You were harmed, or your property, business, profession, or occupation sustained harm.
• The defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing your harm.

In some cases, you might also have to prove that the defendant acted with actual malice.

The damages you may recover in these actions will depend on the specific facts of the case. Some common examples of damages include compensation for harm to reputation, shame and hurt feelings, damage to your trade or occupation, or loss of business income resulting from the disclosure.

It is important to note that false light claims must be based on the implication of a false fact. Opinions are constitutionally protected, and you will not be held liable for expressing a negative opinion. Additionally, true statements are not actionable in false light claims.

Frequently asked questions