No. The company did not make the information 'public' in the way the law requires for this type of lawsuit. For an invasion of privacy claim, 'publicity' means sharing something with the whole world or so many people that it's bound to get out everywhere. Sending a list to 16 managers is a private communication between co-workers, not a public announcement. Even though Social Security numbers are very sensitive, this specific law is designed to protect people from having their private lives exposed to the community, not from limited disclosures inside a business.

No, the company didn't share the information with enough people for it to count as making it public. We're using a definition that says information is only 'public' if it's shared with lots of people or shared in a way that would almost certainly make everyone know about it. Sending the workers' social security numbers to 16 managers isn't enough to count as making it public. The workers also said the information might still be getting shared, but they didn't have any proof of this. We think it's important to be strict about what counts as making something public because this kind of lawsuit is only meant for very specific situations. We're saying the first court was right to throw out the case, and the second court was wrong to say it could go forward.

No. The dissemination of employee social security numbers to 16 terminal managers does not constitute 'publicity' for an invasion of privacy claim. For a claim of publication of private facts, 'publicity' requires that a matter be made public by communicating it to the public at large or to so many people that it is substantially certain to become public knowledge. The court explicitly adopts the definition from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D, which distinguishes 'publicity' from the lesser standard of 'publication' used in defamation law, which only requires communication to a single third party. The court rejects the lower court's approach of considering the nature of the private data and the risk of harm, as this improperly blurs the distinct elements of the tort. Similarly, the court declines to adopt a 'special relationship' exception followed by some jurisdictions, which would allow a claim for disclosure to a smaller, specific group like co-workers. Disseminating the information to 16 managers is a private, not a public, communication, and therefore fails to satisfy the publicity element of the tort.

No. We hold that the complaint does not allege the requisite 'publicity' to support a claim for publication of private facts. We adopt the definition of 'publicity' from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D cmt. a, which requires that the matter be communicated to the public at large or to so many persons that it must be regarded as substantially certain to become public knowledge. The dissemination of 204 employees' social security numbers to 16 terminal managers in six states does not meet this threshold. Furthermore, the allegation that the information 'is still being shared or is accessible in general' is mere speculation and insufficient to establish publicity. We reject the court of appeals' approach of considering the nature of the private data and potential damage as part of the publicity analysis, as this blurs the distinction between the publicity element and other elements of the tort. We also decline to adopt a 'special relationship' or 'particular public' approach taken by some jurisdictions. The Restatement definition appropriately limits the publication of private facts cause of action and focuses on the narrow gap in tort law it is intended to address. Therefore, we reverse the court of appeals' decision and reinstate the district court's dismissal of the complaint.

Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot