Invasion of Privacy: What are Your Damages


In the age of society’s obsession with sharing everything in blog posts, Facebook comments, and 140 character tweets right to privacy still remains an ingrained part of America’s consciousness. The public’s outrage over the NSA scandal is evidence of this. But, what are your damages for an invasion of your privacy? It is fairly rare that an invasion of privacy would result in economic loss and even less likely that it would result in physical harm. Which begs the question, how do you quantify a feeling of being violated?

The Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977) identifies four different types of the tort of invasion of privacy, (1) intrusion upon seclusion, (2) publicity given to private life, (3) appropriation of name or likeness, and (4) publicity placing a person in false light.

Until 1998, Minnesota and two other states, North Dakota and Wyoming, had never recognized a right to privacy under Minnesota law. The case of Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. 1998) changed privacy law in Minnesota when the Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged, for the first time, a cause of action for intrusion upon seclusion. Justice Blatz stated, “[t]he right to privacy is inherent in the English protections of individual property and contract rights and the ‘right to be let alone’ is recognized as part of the common law across the country.” However, in the 16 years since Lake, there is still not a lot of guidance regarding what appropriate damages for intrusion upon seclusion are.

The Restatement (Second) of Torts, which the Supreme Court relied on when deciding Lake, states in Section 652H:

One who established a cause of action for invasion of privacy is entitled to recover damages for (a) the harm to his interest in privacy resulting from the invasion; (b) his mental distress proved to have been suffered if it is of a kind that normally results from such an invasion; and (c) special damage of which the invasion is a legal cause.

Although Minnesota courts have not formally adopted Section 652H in determining damages, there is nothing to suggest that its framework would be denied if asserted. The courts will most likely recognize the intrinsic value in protecting one’s privacy, even if no economic or physical harm was incurred. Highlighting the absence of economic or physical harm to an intrusion upon seclusion case makes a great defense for the time being, but it is just a matter of time until Minnesota courts adopt guidelines to allow aggrieved persons an opportunity to enforce the law in Lake.

Leave a Public Comment

  • gulnar
    April 4, 2015, 12:38 am

    Blowing the Whistle on PRIVACY ACT/Data Breaches
    NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS – negligence – misappropriation
    Call to discuss 972-704-6074

    As a 7-11 corporate employee at Dallas corporate office headquarters, I was fired due to retaliation and unlawful termination. During scope of my employment, my personal information was breached, by a contractor without my consent.
    Individual involved leaked my information and breach came down to harm my in many ways. Potentially responsible management did not pay attention to my concerns.
    Later on, I discovered that 7-Eleven (IT) information technology department was failing to secure ALL 7-Eleven employee’s (PII) personal private information like social security #, date of birth, pay, dependants information, which indeed violated many federal laws, like Privacy Act of 1974, Privacy Principles, data breach and their own security policies.
    I raised my concerns ongoing, with respect to my privacy safety and security and respect to rest of ALL 7-Eleven employees’ security privacy.
    I also raised my concerns to management which I believed to be data breach. Months later, management Individual’s involved in wrong doing claimed to have done nothing wrong with keeping up with employee personal information secure. Dispute to the fact, I provided evidence which was leading to many of the federal violations.
    Disputes to my valid concerns, management individual’s involved in violating the federal laws of keeping employee’s information secured resulted in to covering up the situations with false statements.
    I have and still struggling a lot mentally, financially, and emotionally due to retaliation and unlawful termination.
    A month later, due to harassment reasons I mentally got distracted and got injured. Upon return to work, employer to provide accommodations for disability.

    I was recently at Baylor emergency due to SUICIDE reason, caused by INVASION OF MY PRIVACY and also with emotional stress due to retaliation and unlawful termination.

    7-Eleven failed to follow federal privacy policies and their own security policies for securing all employees’ secured information.
    Necessary, legal action is being taken to protect former female corporate employee, who has and still facing many harms.
    At this time, when concerns about the privacy and security of electronic health records is a hot topic.
    7-Eleven knowingly and repeatedly violated (PII) privacy personal information, HIPAA law and failed to take necessary action in protecting employee’s personal information