Anderson v. Gannett Co., Inc.
994 So. 2d 1048, 33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 856, 36 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2553 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Florida law does not recognize the tort of false light invasion of privacy. Consequently, any question regarding the statute of limitations for such a claim is moot.
Facts:
- Joe Anderson, Jr. was a former Escambia County administrator.
- In May 2000, a jury acquitted Anderson of all criminal charges of official misconduct.
- Anderson subsequently lost a reelection bid for his position.
- In December 2002, the Pensacola News Journal, owned by Gannett Company, Inc., published an editorial discussing a proposed ethics ordinance.
- The editorial used Anderson as an example, falsely stating that he was "removed from office for misconduct" and "forced from office for wrongdoing."
Procedural Posture:
- Joe Anderson, Jr. sued Gannett Company, Inc. in a Florida circuit court (trial court) for defamation and false light invasion of privacy.
- The trial court dismissed the defamation claim as barred by the two-year statute of limitations.
- The false light claim proceeded to trial, where a jury found in favor of Anderson and awarded damages.
- Gannett Company, Inc., as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Florida First District Court of Appeal.
- The First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the two-year statute of limitations for defamation should also apply to false light claims.
- The appellate court then certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida regarding the applicable statute of limitations for false light claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Florida law recognize a cause of action for false light invasion of privacy?
Opinions:
Majority - Pariente, J.
No. A cause of action for false light invasion of privacy is not recognized under Florida law. Relying on its contemporaneous decision in Jews for Jesus v. Rapp, the court held that the tort of false light is not a viable claim in Florida. The court reasoned that the tort largely overlaps with defamation and that the benefit of recognizing it is outweighed by the danger of unreasonably chilling constitutionally protected speech. Because the cause of action itself does not exist, the certified question from the lower court regarding the applicable statute of limitations is moot and need not be answered. The court clarified that this decision was not a retroactive abolition of an established right, but rather a refusal to recognize a tort that had never been formally adopted into Florida's common law.
Analysis:
This decision, issued in conjunction with its companion case Jews for Jesus v. Rapp, definitively eliminated the tort of false light invasion of privacy in Florida. It resolved a conflict among the state's intermediate appellate courts and prioritized First Amendment free speech principles over the privacy interests protected by the false light tort. By refusing to recognize the cause of action, the court prevents plaintiffs from using a false light claim to bypass the stricter requirements and shorter two-year statute of limitations applicable to defamation claims. This ruling provides greater certainty for media organizations and other speakers in Florida by narrowing the avenues for litigation based on published statements.
