Peck v. Tribune Co.

Background

A woman’s portrait appeared in a newspaper advertisement for Duffy’s Pure Malt Whiskey with a quoted endorsement and the name “Mrs. A. Schuman” beneath it. The plaintiff alleged she was not Mrs. Schuman, was not a nurse, and never drank alcohol. She also sued for use of her likeness without permission. At trial the judge excluded her testimony and directed a verdict for the newspaper, and the federal appeals court affirmed that decision.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether that advertisement could be treated as a harmful false publication and whether the plaintiff should have had a chance to prove her case to a jury. The opinion explained that a publisher takes the risk when it prints statements that are plainly hurtful, and that a mistaken or careless publication is not an excuse. The Court said a false statement does not have to offend everyone; it is enough if it would damage the plaintiff’s standing among a considerable, respectable part of the community. Because the advertisement could reasonably be viewed as harming her reputation, the plaintiff was entitled to present evidence and let a jury decide.

Real world impact

The decision protects people whose photos or names are used in misleading ads by letting them seek damages and put their claims to a jury. Newspapers and advertisers face real risk if they publish false endorsements or use images without permission, even if the publisher claims a mistake. The ruling is procedural rather than a final finding of liability: the outcome will depend on what a jury concludes after hearing the plaintiff’s evidence.