[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

Under Florida law, the tort of public disclosure of private facts requires that a party prove:

1. publication to a large number of people,
2. of private facts
3. whose publication would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and
4. are not of public concern.
5. False Light: Publication of facts that place a person in a false light even though the facts themselves may not be defamatory.

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']

Under Florida law, the tort of public disclosure of private facts requires that a party prove:

1. publication to a large number of people,
2. of private facts
3. whose publication would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and
4. are not of public concern.
5. False Light: Publication of facts that place a person in a false light even though the facts themselves may not be defamatory.

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: Cape Publications, Inc. v. Hitchner, 549 So.2d 1374, 1377 (Fla. 1989); Agency For Health Care Adm. v. Assoc. Indus., Inc., 678 So.2d 1239, 1252 (Fla. 1996) (discussing all causes of action).


Third District: Doe v. Univision Television Group, Inc., 717 So.2d 63, 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

Fourth District: Guarino v. Mandel, 327 So.3d 853, 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Straub v. Scarpa, 967 So.2d 437, 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)(false light).

Fifth District: Post-Newsweek Stations Orlando, Inc. v. Guetzloe, 968 So.2d 608, 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Williams v. City of Minneola, 575 So.2d 683, 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Regions Bank v. Kaplan, 2021 WL 4852268, *12 (11th Cir. Oct. 19, 2021); Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 994 F.3d 1341, 1347 (11th Cir. 2021); Spilfogel v. Fox Broad. Co., 433 F. App’x. 724, 726 (11th Cir. 2011).


Southern District: Harrington v. Veritext, LLC, No. 24-CV-22787, 2025 WL 1591614, at *10 (S.D. Fla. May 1, 2025); In re Mednax Servs., Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 2022 WL 1468057, *27 (S.D. Fla. May 10, 2022); Selinger v. Kimera Labs, Inc., 2022 WL 34444, *7-8 (S.D. Fla. Jan.3, 2022); Leach v. Dist. Bd. of Tr. of Palm Beach, 244 F. Supp. 3d 1334, at 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2017).

 

Middle District: Doe v. Predator Catchers, Inc., No. 3:22-CV-414-MMH-LLL, 2024 WL 3965754, at *12 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2024); Rothenberg v. Knight Swift Transp., 2023 WL 3511271, *3 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2023); Farmer v. Humana, Inc., 2022 WL 732126, *6 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2022); Malverty v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 407 F. Supp. 3d 1257, 1267 (M.D. Fla. 2019). 

FLORIDA REFERENCES

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

Restatement of Unfair Competition § 46 (1993)

Restatement (Second) of Torts §652D (1977).

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Invasion of Privacy – Public Disclosure of Private Facts

(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) In Florida, except in cases of physical invasion, the tort of invasion of privacy must be accompanied by publication to the public in general or to a large number of persons. See Kautz v. Residence Inn by Marriott, LLC, No. 8:14–cv–988–T–24–MAP, 2014 WL 4416012, *3 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 5, 2014).

(15) “An essential element of the tort of public disclosure of private facts is that the facts at issue be true.” Harrington v. Veritext, LLC, No. 24-CV-22787, 2025 WL 1591614, at *10 (S.D. Fla. May 1, 2025); citing Tyne ex rel. Tyne v. Time Warner Entm't Co., L.P., 204 F. Supp. 2d 1338, 1344 (M.D. Fla. 2002), aff'd sub nom. Tyne v. Time Warner Entm't Co., L.P., 425 F.3d 1363 (11th Cir. 2005).

[/MM_Access_Decision]