Invasion of Privacy: False Light Offers False Hope
![handle is hein.journals/laent8 and id is 421 raw text is: INVASION OF PRIVACY: FALSE LIGHT
OFFERS FALSE HOPE
Television producer Arthur Fellows was the subject of an article in
the August 17, 1982 issue of the National Enquirer (the Enquirer).
The article showed a picture of Fellows and actress Angie Dickinson and
stated: Gorgeous Angie Dickinson's all smiles about the new man in her
life-TV producer Arthur Fellows. Angie's steady-dating Fellows all
over TinselTown, [sic] and happily posed for photographers with him as
they exited the swank Spago restaurant in Beverly Hills.' That article
was the start of Fellows v. National Enquirer, Inc.2 (Fellows).
Shortly after publication, Fellows' attorney wrote a letter to the En-
quirer asserting that the article was false and demanding an immediate
retraction. The Enquirer's attorney replied, expressing confusion as to
the alleged falsity. Fellows' attorney responded in a second letter stating
that [t]he article was false because Fellows has never dated Miss Dick-
inson, is not 'the new man in her life' and has been married to Phyllis
Fellows for the last eighteen years.3 The Enquirer continued to refuse
Fellows' request for a retraction and he brought an action for libel, false
light invasion of privacy, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional
distress and conscious disregard.4
Fellows' libel count was supported both by information contained in
the article and on the fact that those who read the article and knew of his
marital status would think that he was engaged in improper and immoral
conduct.5 The privacy cause of action was based on the same factual
allegations. Both causes of action alleged that the Enquirer published the
article with knowledge of its falseness or with reckless disregard for the
accuracy of the statement. Fellows sought general damages for his loss
of reputation, shame, mortification and hurt feelings.6 He also claimed
special damages for loss of business.7
The Enquirer demurred to the complaint. First, it asserted that Fel-
l. NATIONAL ENQUIRER, Aug. 17, 1982, at 15.
2. 42 Cal. 3d 234, 721 P.2d 97, 228 Cal. Rptr. 215 (1986).
3. Id. at 236 n.3, 721 P.2d at 98 n.3, 228 Cal. Rptr. at 215 n.3.
4. Although Fellows asserted a claim for conscious disregard, the nature and purpose
of that claim is unclear.
5. Fellows, 42 Cal. 3d at 236, 721 P.2d at 98, 228 Cal. Rptr. at 217. The applicability of
California Civil Code § 45a became an issue because information in addition to that contained
in the article was necessary to make it defamatory.
6. Id. at 237, 721 P.2d at 98, 228 Cal. Rptr. at 217.
7. Id.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/laent8&div=28&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Invasion of Privacy: False Light Offers False Hope
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most