[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

Florida recognizes three distinct causes of action for invasion of privacy:

1. Appropriation: Unauthorized use of a person’s name or likeness to obtain some benefit.
2. Intrusion: Physically or electronically intruding into one’s private quarters or person.
3. Public Disclosure of Private Facts: Publication of private facts that are offensive to the reasonable person and not of legitimate public concern.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

Florida recognizes three distinct causes of action for invasion of privacy:

1. Appropriation: Unauthorized use of a person’s name or likeness to obtain some benefit.
2. Intrusion: Physically or electronically intruding into one’s private quarters or person.
3. Public Disclosure of Private Facts: Publication of private facts that are offensive to the reasonable person and not of legitimate public concern.

Intrusion involves physically or electronically intruding into one’s private quarters. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ginsberg, 863 So.2d 156, 162 (Fla. 2003) Unlike other privacy torts, an action for intrusion does not require publication; instead, the intrusion focuses on “the right of a private person to be free from public gaze.” Id. An intrusion claim has three elements. First, there must be a private quarter. Second, there must be some physical or electronic intrusion into that private quarter. Third, the intrusion must be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Oppenheim v. I.C. Sys., Inc., 695 F. Supp. 2d. 1303, 1308 (M.D. Fla. 2010); Ward v. Casual Rest. Concepts Inc., No. 8:10-CV-2640-EAK-TGW, 2012 WL 695846, at *9 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2012) (sufficiently alleged intrusion with going into cell phone).

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: Jews For Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So.2d 1098, 1102-03, 1115 (Fla. 2008) (finding that false light is not a recognized invasion of privacy tort in Florida); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ginsberg, 863 So.2d 156, 159, 162-63 (Fla. 2003) (sets forth general elements of all four causes of actions and goes into depth on intrusion); Agency For Health Care Adm. v. Assoc. Indus., Inc., 678 So.2d 1239, 1252 (Fla. 1996) (discussing all causes of action).

Second District: Jackman v. Cebrink-Swartz, 334 So.3d 653, 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021); State v. Tamulonis, 39 So.3d 524, 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

Third District: Pet Supermarket, Inc. v. Eldridge, 2023 WL 3327267, *4 (Fla. 3d DCA May 10, 2023).

Fifth District: Armstrong v. H&C Commc’n, Inc., 575 So.2d 280, 282 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Hammer v. Sorensen, 824 F. App’x 689, 695 (11th Cir. 2020); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ginsberg, 351 F.3d 473, 483-84 (11th Cir. 2003).

Southern District: Rebalko v. City of Coral Springs, 552 F.Supp.3d 1285, 1332 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Hall v. Sargeant, No. 18-80748-CIV, 2020 WL 1536435, at *32 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2020).

Middle District: W.W. v. Orlando Health, Inc., No. 6:24-CV-1068-JSS-RMN, 2025 WL 722892, at *8 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 6, 2025); Clemen v. Surterra Holdings, Inc., No. 8:23-CV-2796-CEH-AEP, 2024 WL 3785904, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2024); Allgood v. PaperlessPay Corp., 2022 WL 846070, *12 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 22, 2022); Shadlich v. Makers Nutrition LLC, No. 8:20-CV-389-T-60CPT, 2020 WL 5255133, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 3, 2020).

Northern District: Sartori v. Schrodt, No. 3:18CV204-RV/CJK, 2018 WL 11209992, at *3 (N.D. Fla. May 22, 2018).

FLORIDA STATUTES

§ 540.08, Fla. Stat. (Appropriation)

FLORIDA REFERENCE

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652 (1977 Amendment)

Restatement of Unfair Competition § 46 (1993)

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Invasion of Privacy – Intrusion

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (four years).

(3) Express consent to publication is a defense. See Rawls v. Conde Nast Publications, Inc., 446 F.2d 313, 316-317 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1038 (1972).

(4) Implied consent to publication is a defense. See Florida Pub. Co. v. Fletcher, 340 So.2d 914, 917 (Fla. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 930 (1977).

(5) Plaintiff failed to prove that publication was offensive to the reasonable person. Harms v. Miami Daily News, Inc., 127 So.2d 715, 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961).

(6) Public identification is a prerequisite to invasion of privacy claims. See Epic Metals Corp., v. Condec, Inc., 867 F. Supp. 1009, 1017 (M.D. Fla. 1994).

(7) Publication of facts of public concern do not give rise to invasion of privacy claim. See Woodward v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 616 So.2d 501, 503 (Fla. 1993).

(8) Disclosure of facts regarding a criminal case obtained from public documents does not give rise to claim for invasion of privacy. See Cape Publications, Inc. v. Hitchner, 549 So.2d 1374, 1379 (Fla. 1989).

(9) Photograph taken in a public place does not give rise to claim for invasion of privacy. See Heath v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc., 732 F. Supp. 1145, 1148 (S.D. Fla. 1990).

(10) Disclosure of facts obtained from public records or proceedings do not give rise to invasion of privacy claim. See Heath v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc., 732 F. Supp. 1145, 1148 (S.D. Fla. 1990).

(11) Invasion of privacy claims, with the exception of appropriation, can be asserted only by the individual whose privacy has been invaded. See Loft v. Fuller, 408 So.2d 619, 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), reh’ g denied, 419 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 1982).

(12) The fair reporting privilege is a defense to claims for invasion of privacy where a broadcast is a “reasonably accurate and fair” description of the contents of information contained in public records. Woodard v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 616 So.2d 501, 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).

(13) The right to privacy does not prohibit the publication of matter which is of legitimate public concern. Walker v. Florida Dept. of L. Enf’t, 845 So.2d 339, 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Jews For Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So.2d 1098, 1104 (Fla. 2008).

(14) False Light Invasion of Privacy is not a recognized cause of action in the state of Florida. See Anderson v. Gannett Co., 994 So.2d 1048, 1051 (Fla. 2008); See also Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So.2d 1098, 1114-15 (Fla. 2008).

(15) Florida law explicitly requires an intrusion into a private place and not merely into a private activity. See Celestine v. Capital One, No. 17-20237-Civ, 2017 WL 2838185, at *3 (S.D. Fla. June 30, 2017); In re Mun. Parking Services, Inc. DPPA Litig., No. 3:24CV320-TKW-HTC, 2025 WL 1475794, at *4 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2025)(including electronic spaces, such as a telephone line, as a private quarter).

[/MM_Access_Decision]