Developments in Public Disclosure of Private Facts

The Supreme Court of Indiana recently held that public disclosure of private facts is not limited to intentional disclosures of private information, and that plaintiffs may recover emotional distress damages.  Z.D. v. Cmty. Health Network, 217 N.E.3d 527, 534, 535 (Ind. 2023) (“We thus find no basis for limiting the availability of the public-disclosure tort to only intentional disclosures of private information.”; “[U]pon satisfying the public-disclosure tort’s elements, plaintiffs may recover emotional-distress damages.”).

Meanwhile, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the transmission of information to a single ministerial intermediary, in this case a third-party mail vendor, does not satisfy the publicity element of that tort.  Nabozny v. Optio Sols. LLC,  84 F.4th 731, 735, 736 (7th Cir. 2023) (Plaintiff alleged that “[Defendant] disclosed pieces of her private debt information to [a third-party mail vendor], and [the mail vendor] used this information to populate a form collection letter and sent it to [plaintiff].”; “The transmission of information to a single ministerial intermediary does not remotely resemble the publicity element”).