What must plaintiffs prove in publication of private facts claims? Judge v. Saltz Explained

In Judge v. Saltz, the Utah Supreme Court addressed fundamental questions about privacy tort claims and consent forms in medical contexts. The case arose when Ms. Judge’s nude pre- and post-operative photographs were broadcast on Fox News after her plastic surgeon’s office provided them to a reporter.

Background and Facts

Ms. Judge underwent plastic surgery and signed consent forms allowing photography “for medical, scientific or educational purposes, provided my identity is not revealed by the pictures.” Later, she agreed to be interviewed for a Fox News story about plastic surgery. During this process, Saltz’s office provided her clinical photographs to the Fox reporter, who then aired redacted versions on the evening news with identifying captions. Judge sued for publication of private facts, intrusion on seclusion, and other privacy torts.

Key Legal Issues

The Court addressed two critical questions: (1) whether Utah should adopt the Restatement requirement that plaintiffs prove the matter publicized is “not of legitimate concern to the public” as a fourth element for publication of private facts claims, and (2) whether disputed issues of material fact regarding the scope and meaning of consent forms precluded summary judgment on the intrusion claim.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court adopted the Restatement’s legitimate public concern element, creating a four-part test for publication of private facts claims. This element requires courts to evaluate newsworthiness, considering whether there is a logical nexus between the information and legitimate public interest, the degree of intrusiveness, and community customs. Regarding the consent forms, the Court found the language ambiguous concerning whether they authorized release of photographs and the scope of “educational purposes” and identity protection provisions.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly impacts privacy litigation by establishing Utah’s four-element test for publication of private facts claims. When consent forms contain ambiguous language about scope of authorization, courts cannot grant summary judgment and must allow factfinders to determine the parties’ intent. Practitioners should carefully draft consent forms with specific language about intended uses and identity protection to avoid ambiguity that could defeat summary judgment motions.