Q: Is there an instance where court found a publication liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress?

A: In California, the scope for successfully claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) against a publication or movie studio is quite narrow, especially post-Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. This ruling set a high bar for IIED claims involving public figures or celebrities, requiring proof that the publication contained a false statement made with actual malice.

However, for non-public figures, the standard is somewhat different. A non-public figure doesn't have to prove actual malice. Instead, they must demonstrate that the conduct of the publication or studio was extreme and outrageous, intended to cause severe emotional distress or done with reckless disregard of the probability of causing such distress, and that it actually caused severe emotional distress.

There have been instances where non-public figures have succeeded in IIED claims against publications or studios, but these cases are less common and highly fact-specific. Each case turns on its own unique set of facts, and the threshold for proving 'extreme and outrageous' conduct is quite high.

If you believe you have a potential IIED claim, it's advisable to consult with an attorney who can evaluate the specifics of your situation and provide tailored advice. They can help assess the strength of your case and guide you through the legal process.

A: Yes of course. You might remember Nicholas Sandman who claimed he was defamed by the media... and settled with some of them for Millions of dollars. See below.

"Nicholas Sandmann tweeted Friday he reached a settlement in his $250 million defamation lawsuit against the Washington Post — on his 18th birthday. Nobody divulged the payout."