Invasion of Privacy

Intrusion upon seclusion occurs when a defendant intentionally invades the private affairs or physical solitude of another. This does not require the publication of any information. The act of spying itself is the tort.

We prosecute claims involving hidden cameras and peepholes and unauthorized entry into homes. We also litigate cases of electronic intrusion such as hacking into email accounts or installing spyware on a phone. We argue that the psychological harm occurs the moment the privacy is breached. We defend against these claims by establishing consent. If the plaintiff allowed the defendant access to the device or the property we argue that there was no intrusion. We also challenge the offensive nature of the conduct by showing that the defendant had a legitimate reason for their actions such as security monitoring or parental oversight.

This tort involves the dissemination of truthful but embarrassing private information that is not of legitimate public concern. This is distinct from defamation which involves false statements. Invasion of privacy through disclosure punishes the malicious release of truth.

We represent clients whose medical history or financial status or sexual orientation has been exposed to the public. We argue that these facts belong in the private sphere. The defense often relies on the First Amendment and the newsworthiness of the information. We aggressively counter this defense. We argue that the morbid curiosity of the public does not make a private fact newsworthy. We distinguish between a public figure who invites scrutiny and a private citizen who deserves anonymity. We seek to hold media outlets and individuals accountable for monetizing the private pain of our clients.

We pursue civil litigation against the individuals who distribute private images. We sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of specific revenge porn statutes.

We trace the digital footprint of the uploader. Even if the images were posted anonymously we use subpoenas to Internet Service Providers to identify the IP address of the perpetrator. We argue for punitive damages. We demonstrate to the jury that the intent of the defendant was purely malicious. We also navigate the safe harbor provisions of the Communications Decency Act which often protects the websites that host the content. While the platform may be immune the individual uploader is not. We focus our efforts on the individual responsible for the conduct.

Invasion of privacy often involves the criminal act of hacking. We represent individuals who have had their cloud accounts or social media profiles compromised.

We treat this as both a civil tort and a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. We employ forensic experts to prove the unauthorized access. If a former spouse guessed a password to read private messages we argue that this is a digital trespass. We defend individuals accused of this conduct by analyzing the authorization history. If the parties shared passwords during the relationship we argue that the access was implicitly authorized until that permission was revoked. We litigate the timeline of the access to determine criminal and civil liability.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act generally prohibits the interception of communications but it contains a business purpose exception. We litigate the scope of this exception.

We argue that an employer cannot monitor personal calls or messages simply because they occur on a work device. If the monitoring captures highly sensitive personal data such as attorney client communications or health information it constitutes an invasion of privacy. We defend employers by proving that clear notice was provided. We rely on the Acceptable Use Policy signed by the employee which eliminates the reasonable expectation of privacy. We demonstrate that the monitoring was automated and content neutral rather than a targeted campaign of harassment.

Placing cameras in the workplace is standard but placing them in private areas is illegal. We litigate cases involving cameras in locker rooms or restrooms or lactation rooms.

These are strict liability offenses in many jurisdictions. We argue that no business interest can justify the recording of employees in a state of undress. We also challenge audio recording. Wiretap laws in many states require two party consent. If a security camera records audio without the knowledge of the employees it is a felony. We seek massive statutory damages for these violations. We argue that the employer prioritized security over the basic human dignity of their workforce.

Voyeurism laws criminalize the act of observing or recording a person in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy for the purpose of sexual gratification. This charge is devastating.

We defend against the sexual gratification element. We argue that the recording was for security or documentation purposes rather than sexual intent. We also litigate the location. If the recording took place in a public area where there is no expectation of privacy, the statute does not apply. We challenge the functionality of the device. If the camera was broken or not recording, we argue that no crime was committed. We work to prevent the client from being labeled a sex offender for the rest of their life.

Recording a telephone call or a private conversation without the required consent is a crime. In all party consent states, every person on the call must agree to the recording.

We defend clients accused of illegal recording by asserting the consent defense. We argue that consent can be implied from the circumstances. If the other party saw the phone on the table recording and continued to speak they impliedly consented. We also use the crime fraud exception. If the recording was made to gather evidence of a crime such as extortion or domestic violence it may be lawful. We position our client as a whistleblower or a victim gathering evidence rather than a criminal perpetrating an invasion of privacy.

General damages for emotional distress are the core of the recovery. We use expert testimony from psychiatrists to diagnose conditions like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and anxiety and depression.

We present a ‘day-in-the-life’ narrative to the jury to illustrate the client’s experience. We show how the paranoia caused by the invasion of privacy affects the daily routine of the victim. We argue that the loss of the feeling of safety is a catastrophic injury. We also seek special damages for the economic cost of the invasion. This includes the cost of therapy and the cost of reputation management services and lost wages. We ensure that the settlement covers the lifelong cost of recovery.

Money cannot always fix the problem if the private information remains available. We seek immediate injunctive relief. We file motions for Temporary Restraining Orders to prohibit the defendant from possessing or distributing the material.

We compel the defendant to turn over all copies of the images or data. We also use these court orders to force websites to de-index the content. We argue that the continued presence of the material constitutes ongoing harm. We structure settlements to include strict liquidated damages clauses. If the defendant leaks the information again, they are automatically liable for a significant financial penalty. We create a legal firewall around the privacy of our client.