Yath v. Fairview Clinics, N. P.
767 N.W.2d 34, 2009 Minn. App. LEXIS 117, 54 A.L.R. 6th 699 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Posting private information on a publicly accessible Internet website constitutes 'publicity' for the purposes of an invasion of privacy claim, regardless of the number of people who actually view the information.
Facts:
- In March 2006, Candace Yath visited the Fairview Cedar Ridge Clinic for a medical appointment and was tested for a sexually transmitted disease (STD).
- Navy Tek, a medical assistant at the clinic who was related to Yath's husband, saw Yath there and accessed her confidential medical file out of curiosity, which was a violation of clinic policy.
- Tek discovered that Yath had been diagnosed with an STD and had a new sexual partner.
- Tek disclosed this information to another Fairview employee, Net Phat, who in turn told Yath's estranged husband, Paul.
- Subsequently, an anonymous person created a public MySpace.com webpage titled 'Rotten Candy' which included Yath's photograph.
- The webpage stated that Yath had an STD, had cheated on her husband, and was addicted to plastic surgery.
- An investigation traced the webpage's creation to an IP address at a business where Tek's sister, Molyka Mao, worked.
Procedural Posture:
- Candace Yath sued Fairview, Navy Tek, Net Phat, and Molyka Mao in a Minnesota district court (trial court) on several claims, including invasion of privacy.
- Fairview and Phat moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against them.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Fairview on all claims and in favor of Phat on most claims.
- Yath voluntarily dismissed her claims against Tek and Mao, and the remaining claim against Phat, to create a final, appealable judgment.
- Yath, as the appellant, appealed the district court's summary judgment order to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
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 posting private information on a publicly accessible social media website satisfy the 'publicity' element for a tortious invasion of privacy claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Ross
Yes. Posting private information on a publicly accessible social media website satisfies the 'publicity' element for an invasion of privacy claim. The court adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts' definition of 'publicity,' which can be met in two ways: by communicating information to the public at large, or by communicating it to so many people that it is substantially certain to become public knowledge. The court held that posting on a public MySpace page is analogous to a newspaper or radio broadcast, making it a communication to the public at large. Therefore, the number of actual viewers is irrelevant to establishing the element of publicity itself. However, the court affirmed summary judgment for Fairview and Phat on this claim because Yath failed to produce any evidence showing they were involved in creating or posting the webpage.
Concurring - Judge Johnson
Yes, but for a narrower reason. The majority's holding that any posting on a publicly accessible website constitutes publicity is unnecessarily broad. The court could have resolved the issue on the grounds that there was sufficient evidence that the webpage was sent directly to 60 to 80 of Yath's friends, which would satisfy the publicity element by communication to a large number of people. Unlike traditional mass media, it cannot be assumed that every webpage on the internet is viewed by a large audience; some are rarely seen. The majority's per se rule is inconsistent with the requirement that the matter be 'substantially certain to become public knowledge.' However, I agree with the ultimate dismissal of the claim due to the lack of evidence linking the remaining defendants to the posting.
Analysis:
This case is significant for extending the traditional common law tort of invasion of privacy into the internet age. The majority's holding creates a bright-line rule that posting information on a public website is per se 'publicity,' lowering the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs who may struggle to prove how many people viewed an online post. This precedent simplifies the initial analysis in internet-based privacy torts, contrasting with the more fact-intensive approach advocated by the concurrence. The decision also affirms that federal laws like HIPAA do not automatically preempt state laws that provide greater patient protections, such as a private right of action for damages.
