Can a spouse claim invasion of privacy for a tasteless company video featuring their partner? Stien v. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc. Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed invasion of privacy claims arising from a company’s tasteless video production in Stien v. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc. The case clarifies the boundaries of privacy tort law when alleged misconduct involves obvious humor rather than serious factual representations.

Background and Facts

Marriott Ownership Resorts created a video for their Christmas party by asking seventeen employees to describe household chores they disliked. The company then edited the video to make it appear the employees were answering the question “What’s sex like with your partner?” The edited video was shown to approximately 200 employees and guests. Cassedy Stien’s husband appeared in the video making comments about smells and protective equipment while discussing what was actually a household chore. Stien sued for invasion of privacy under four theories: intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation of name or likeness, publicity of private facts, and false light.

Key Legal Issues

The court analyzed whether the elements of Utah’s four distinct privacy torts were satisfied: (1) intrusion upon seclusion requiring intentional substantial intrusion that is highly offensive to a reasonable person; (2) appropriation requiring use of plaintiff’s name or likeness; (3) publicity of private facts requiring disclosure of actual private facts; and (4) false light requiring publicity placing someone in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court affirmed summary judgment dismissing all claims. For intrusion upon seclusion, plaintiff failed to show conduct sufficiently intrusive or highly offensive to a reasonable person, given the obvious humorous intent. The appropriation claim failed because plaintiff’s name or likeness never appeared in the video. The publicity of private facts claim failed because the video conveyed no actual facts about plaintiff’s private affairs. Finally, the false light claim failed because no reasonable viewer would treat the production as factual commentary rather than an obvious spoof.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes important limitations on privacy tort claims in Utah. Each of the four privacy torts has distinct elements that must be satisfied. Courts will consider context and reasonableness when evaluating offensiveness. Obvious humor or spoofs cannot support privacy claims where no reasonable person would view the conduct as serious factual representation. Practitioners should carefully analyze whether alleged misconduct meets the specific threshold requirements for each privacy tort theory.