The Price of Fame: How Inadequacies in Privacy Protections Create Dangerous Situations for Celebrities

by Madisen Zent, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Vol. 93

I. Introduction

In August 2024, rising pop star Chappell Roan posted a series of TikTok and Instagram messages confronting her fans for inappropriate behavior.[1] Specifically, Roan called out fans for abuse, harassment, and stalking.[2] She complained of fans following her, touching her, calling her by her legal name, and contacting her friends and family.[3] She did not express a desire to pursue any legal action concerning this behavior.[4] Roan’s experience with this kind of fan behavior is not unique. Other celebrities have suffered physically and mentally from these kinds of fan encounters and violations of privacy.

This article explores how the legal remedies currently available to Chappell Roan and other celebrities do not protect celebrities in situations where fans violate their privacy. Part II explains United States citizens’ basic privacy rights and legal actions citizens can take when those rights are violated. Part III argues that the current legal remedies are inadequate for invasions of privacy, especially for celebrities. Part IV concludes by reiterating the importance of adequate legal remedies for invasions of privacy.  

II. Background

In the United States, citizens enjoy privacy rights protected by the Constitution and by statute. The most basic of these rights is “the right to be left alone.”[5] Samuel Warren and Justice Louis Brandeis brought privacy rights to the American legal system’s attention in their law review article where they discussed how technological and sociological changes affect views on privacy.[6] Warren and Brandies concluded that an invasion of an individual’s private life constitutes a legal injury deserving protection.[7] Despite Warren and Brandeis advocating for legal protection, privacy rights are difficult to define and protect.  

A. Constitutional Protections of Privacy Rights

The Constitution protects citizens’ privacy rights with respect to governmental interference.[8] For example, the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. [9] While there is not explicit right to privacy in the Constitution, the plain text of the Constitution protects individuals from specific government actions and courts have interpreted these protections as a right to privacy.  

In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court discussed how protections from multiple Constitutional amendments create a penumbral right to privacy.[10] The rights afforded to citizens from the Bill of Rights implicitly grant a right to privacy through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[11] While Griswold was specifically about protecting privacy within marriage, the Court implied that the Constitution granted citizens a right to privacy.[12] Griswold  illustrated a broad right to privacy, but cases such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization,[13] have limited the use of a general right to privacy by overturning Roe v. Wade, which granted privacy for abortion rights.[14] Yet the right to privacy still remains undefined.[15] Therefore, although the right to privacy from government action is deeply rooted in the Constitution, how far this general right to privacy extends is constantly up for debate.

B. Statutory Protections of Privacy Rights

While the Constitution only protects individuals from government action, common law and statutory provisions protect individual people’s privacy rights against invasions from other individuals. Civil and criminal law offer protection for individuals who suffer invasions of privacy. When deciding whether an invasion of privacy has occurred in a civil case, the main issue the court must determine is whether the defendant has invaded the plaintiff’s private life and how much information the plaintiff has already revealed to the public.[16] In a criminal case, the main issue is whether the defendant engaged in a course of conduct with the intent to cause fear or emotional distress.

C. Civil Tort Actions

A person can bring a tortious action against a person who invades their privacy.[17] Specifically, an invasion of privacy occurs when there is: (1) an invasion of a person’s seclusion; (2) use of another’s name or likeness; (3) publicity given to a person’s private life; or (4) publicity that makes another look bad.[18] These categories are not an exhaustive list of all the ways an invasion of privacy may be brought to court, but these invasions are the most established and defined in the law.[19]

First, when there is an invasion of a person’s seclusion, solitude, or private affairs a tort is committed if a reasonable person would find the invasion highly offensive.[20] The invasion itself can subject the defendant to liability, even if the defendant never uses or publicizes any of the information gathered.[21] The crux of the tort action is if the defendant invades an area of the plaintiff’s life they have tried to keep private.[22] An invasion of privacy does not occur if the plaintiff publicly revealed their actions or the plaintiff is not actively keeping their information private.[23] Additionally, there is no liability unless the invasion is substantial and is such an invasion that a reasonable person would object to.[24]

Second, a tort can occur when someone uses another’s name or likeness.[25] This invasion is mostly relevant to commercial use, but the use of another’s name or likeness for personal benefits can also constitute an invasion of another’s privacy.[26]

Third, a tort can occur when someone publicizes another individual’s private life if it would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and the information revealed is not of legitimate public concern.[27] Publicity does not necessarily mean publication; rather “publicity” encompasses communication of another’s private life in a way that ensures the information reaches the public.[28] The crux of this action is based on what the plaintiff has already revealed to the public themselves versus what the plaintiff has kept private.[29] When someone reveals their information to the public, there cannot be an invasion of privacy if another person later publicizes the same information.[30] But when someone intentionally keeps their life private or reveals personal details only to family or very close friends, an invasion of privacy occurs if another person makes such personal details public.[31] People who voluntarily place themselves in the public eye, like celebrities, do not enjoy the same level of privacy rights as ordinary citizens.[32] However, when someone places themselves in the public eye, their decreased privacy rights only extend to the parts of their life that they have made public.[33]

Finally, a tort occurs when someone publicizes a falsity about another if the falsity would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and the person who publicized the information knew of or recklessly disregarded the falsity.[34] This invasion of privacy is similar to defamation cases, but there does not need to be proof that the plaintiff’s entire reputation was defamed.[35] Instead, the plaintiff need only show that the false information given to the public was unreasonable and highly objectionable.[36]

D. Criminal Actions

Under the Model Penal Code, it is a misdemeanor for a defendant to harass another person.[37] Harassment includes: (1) making unwarranted phone calls; (2) insulting or taunting another to get a response; (3) repeatedly communicating with another anonymously, inconveniently, or offensively; (4) offensively touching another person; or (5) taking actions to alarm another person.[38] To constitute criminal harassment the defendant must intentionally harass the other person.[39]

The Model Penal Code does not explicitly set out guidelines for criminal stalking. Instead, the National Center for Victims of Crimes has created a model rule for states to consider when enacting legislation regarding stalking.[40] Under the model rule, stalking is a felony when a person acts in a “course of conduct” toward a specific person and reasonably causes that person to fear for their safety or suffer emotional distress.[41]

“Course of conduct” means a defendant takes repeated actions to follow, monitor, threaten, communicate, or otherwise interfere with a specific person’s life or property.[42] The list of stalking behaviors outlined by the model rule is not exhaustive; instead, it serves as a guide used to evaluate whether a certain type of behavior would be considered stalking.[43] This guide is particularly helpful because it foresaw the technological advances that have emerged in the past ten years  which enable different invasions of privacy. For example, the emergence of social media and the wide range of personal information available on the internet allows for surveillance or other stalking conduct that the model rule drafters feared would become a loophole to stalking legislation.[44] The model rule drafters even suggest legislatures create new laws to combat stalking behaviors perpetrated online.[45]

In addition to the defendant engaging in a specific course of conduct, that conduct must cause the target fear or to suffer emotional distress.[46] The degree of fear or emotional distress the person being stalked must suffer varies depending on the state.[47] At a minimum, however, there must be a reasonable fear or distress caused by the stalking.[48] 

E. Celebrity Examples

While there are multiple examples of celebrities who are concerned with fan behaviors, there are few lawsuits against fans by celebrities, and those few are usually against the press.[49] The few lawsuits that emerge often produce public backlash.

For example, Chappell Roan’s posts sparked controversy with some people claiming the new star was being ungrateful, while others supported her setting boundaries.[50] Comments accused the singer of being “straight up not a nice person” and that after begging for this attention she will “inevitably fizzle out.”[51] Social media allows for fans to be more vocal in their backlash, therefore there are more situations similar to Chappell Roan’s where celebrities’ privacy rights are being violated.  

III. Discussion

The Supreme Court indicated there is a more generalized protection of privacy rights than what is explicitly written in the Constitution.[52] However, the Constitutional right to privacy is only against governmental invasions of personal privacy and does not protect against invasions of privacy from private individuals. Therefore, to enforce their right to privacy against their fans, celebrities must rely on state legal remedies. However, these protections are rarely adequate. While these protections are technically available to celebrities, the inadequacies in providing true protection for celebrities and the potential social backlash makes pursuing a legal remedy unreasonable.

A. Inadequacy in the Tort Action of Invasion of Privacy

The tort action for invasion of privacy is inadequate for protecting celebrities since celebrities must overcome the major hurdle of being in the public eye.  When celebrities are in the public eye, they must prove that either the invasion is outside the realm of what they have revealed to the public or that the invasion is so offensive that their privacy should be protected anyway.[53] Many people believe that celebrities display their entire lives to the public, and therefore they have decreased privacy rights. This assertion, however, is overly broad. Celebrities only reveal specific information to the public, so while they may have a decreased privacy interest in the information they publicly share, celebrities should still have full legal protection for the information they actively seek to keep private.

For example, celebrities like Chappell Roan only reveal a stage character to the public. Chappel Roan is a persona that the singer adopts so she is not revealing her true life or name to the public.[54] She should still retain privacy for the parts of her life she has chosen to keep private, especially because she is actively attempting to keep her true person private. While her fans may view her public person as her true self, Chappell Roan deserves to maintain the privacy of her private life.

Requiring celebrities to prove they intended to keep information private makes it extremely difficult for celebrities to recover for tortious invasions of privacy. Not only do celebrities have to prove there was an invasion of their privacy, but they also must prove they actively tried to keep such information private. Celebrities may hesitate to take advantage of the available legal remedy in tort law because there is a low chance of success and a high risk of public backlash. The high burden forces celebrities to decide if they want to allow the invasion of privacy by their fans or if they want to face public scrutiny.

B. Inadequacy in the Criminal Action of Stalking

Pursuing criminal action against stalking or harassment is also inadequate for celebrities because of the element requiring celebrities to prove their fan’s behavior reasonably resulted in fear or emotional distress.[55] Celebrities and their fans often have a parasocial relationship that makes seemingly normal or rational actions dangerous and even deadly. A parasocial relationship is one where a viewer or fan of a celebrity feels they have an intimate relationship with the celebrity.[56] These relationships stem from a parasocial interaction where there is a perceived conversation with a celebrity.[57] This means that when a viewer watches television or views social media posts, they believe the celebrity is directly communicating with them, thus developing a perceived relationship.[58] Based on the large amount of information available and the seemingly intimate interactions on social media, these types of relationships are common.

For example, Christina Grimmie became famous after posting YouTube videos of her singing and competing on The Voice.[59] After a post-concert meet and greet, the singer was shot and killed by an obsessed fan.[60] The fan obsessively watched the singer’s YouTube videos and told his friends that Grimmie was his “soul mate.”[61] The fan even began changing his appearance to be more appealing to Grimmie.[62] Because of Grimmie’s internet presence, her murderer was able to cultivate a parasocial relationship with the star that went unnoticed.[63] Grimmie had no idea that she was in danger, as the parasocial relationship and online stalking created an unknown danger to the famous singer. Celebrities are uniquely at risk of being stalked because of the public-facing nature of their career. Yet, harassment and stalking statutes are inadequate, placing celebrities in unsafe and possibly deadly situations.

C. Possible Solution

Current legislation attempting to protect an individual’s privacy is inadequate to protect celebrities against obsessive fan behaviors. There needs to be more impactful remedies for these dangerous invasions of privacy. Monetary remedies or protective orders simply are not adequate to compensate for the violations celebrities may encounter by obsessive fans. Additionally, protective orders are only effective if the person is willing to comply. The only time the courts are willing to take further action in addition to a protective order is if the victim can prove further violations of the protective order.

 For example, the family of President Kennedy suffered from extreme invasions of privacy from a reporter.[64] The family was granted a protective order against the reporter, requiring that he stay a certain distance away from the family, not contact them, and not take any photos of them.[65] However, the reporter continued to violate this protective order, further harming the family. Because protective orders have no real deterrent or punitive effect, they are ineffective remedies.

An alternative solution is to create specialized cyberstalking laws. The internet has created countless ways to stalk others and allows for more dangerous parasocial relationships to arise. While some states have implemented laws to combat cyberstalking, all states should enact laws that consider the unique use of the internet in stalking behaviors.[66]

Finally, society must be willing to grant celebrities their privacy, as the public backlash will inevitably deter celebrities from pursuing legal remedies. The standard is based on a reasonable person and therefore if the reasonable person does not believe public figures deserve privacy, there is no legal remedy. While legal remedies can be created to protect celebrities in their unique position, a societal change may be necessary as well.

IV. Conclusion

Chappell Roan is just one of many celebrities who fear fans are violating their privacy. Yet, the public backlash can harm celebrities’ careers when they raise these issues. Public backlash deters celebrities from taking advantage of any protective orders, especially if there is a low likelihood of success. Invasions of privacy should have legal remedies that are adequate for all people to take advantage of. Celebrities are in unique positions with their lives being on full display. Yet, they should not be expected to forfeit all privacy rights due to their fame.

---

[1] Chappell Roan (@chappellroan), Tik Tok (Aug. 19, 2024), https://www.tiktok.com/@chappellroan/video/7404955808980667690?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7424934302490412586.; Chappell Roan (@chappellroan), Tik Tok (Aug. 19, 2024), https://www.tiktok.com/@chappellroan/video/7404957266853645611?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7424934302490412586 [hereinafter abuse and harassment].; Chappell Roan (@chappellroan), Instagram (Aug. 23, 2024), https://www.instagram.com/p/C_CGxsrP4Bc/?img_index=4.

[2] Abuse and harassment, supra note 1.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Thomas Cooley, A Treatise on the Law of Torts or the Wrongs Which Arise Independent of Contract 29, (2d ed. 1888) (quoting).

[6] Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890).

[7] Id.

[8] U.S. Const. amend. I; U.S. Const. amend. III; U.S. Const. amend. IV; U.S. Const. amend. V; U.S. Const. amend. IX.

[9] Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 360 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring).

[10] 381 U.S. 479, 483 – 85 (1965).

[11] Id.

[12] Id. at 486.

[13] Id.

[14] Id.;  Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 597 U.S. 215 (2022); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

[15] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652A cmt. c (Am. L. Inst. 2020).

[16] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B cmt. c (Am. L. Inst. 2020); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D cmt. h (Am. L. Inst. 2020).

[17] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652A(1) (Am. L. Inst. 2020).

[18] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652A(2) (Am. L. Inst. 2020).

[19] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652A cmt. c (Am. L. Inst. 2020).

[20] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B (Am. L. Inst. 2020).

[21] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B cmt. a-b (Am. L. Inst. 2020).

[22] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B cmt. c (Am. L. Inst. 2020).

[23] Id.

[24] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B cmt. d (Am. L. Inst. 2020).

[25] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652C (Am. L. Inst. 2020).

[26] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652C cmt. b, (Am. L. Inst. 2020).

[27] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D (Am. L. Inst. 2020).

[28] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D cmt. a (Am. L. Inst. 2020).

[29] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D cmt. b (Am. L. Inst. 2020).

[30] Id.

[31] Id.

[32] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D cmt. e (Am. L. Inst. 2020).

[33] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D cmt. h (Am. L. Inst. 2020).

[34] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E (Am. L. Inst. 2020).

[35] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E cmt. b (Am. L. Inst. 2020).

[36] Id.

[37] Model Penal Code § 250.4 (Am. L. Inst. 2017).

[38] Id.

[39] Id.

[40]The Model Stalking Code Revisited: Responding to New Realities of Stalking, Nat’l Ctr. For Victims of Crime 23-61 (2007), available at https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/model-stalking-code-revisited-responding-new-realities-stalking.

[41] Id. at 24.

[42] Id.

[43] Id. at 45 – 47.

[44] Id.

[45] Id.

[46] Id. at 24.

[47] Id. at 38.

[48] Id. at 38.

[49] See Galella v. Onassis, 533 F. Supp. 1076 (1982).

[50] Stella Powers, Chappell Roan speaks out about boundaries, unsurprisingly leading to internet discourse, The Miami Student (Sept. 5, 2024), https://www.miamistudent.net/article/2024/09/chappell-roan-setting-boundaries-controversy-pop-music-twitter.

[51] Id.

[52] Restatement (Second) of Torts §652A cmt. c (Am. L. Inst. 2020).

[53] Restatement (Second) of Torts §652B cmt. c (Am. L. Inst. 2020); Restatement (Second) of Torts §652D cmt. h (Am. L. Inst. 2020).

[54] Chappell Roan (@chappellroan), Instagram (Aug. 23, 2024), https://www.instagram.com/p/C_CGxsrP4Bc/?img_index=4.

[55] Model Penal Code §250.4 (Am. L. Inst. 2017); The Model Stalking Code Revisited: Responding to New Realities of Stalking, Nat’l Ctr. For Victims of Crime 23-61 (2007), available at https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/model-stalking-code-revisited-responding-new-realities-stalking.

[56] Jayson L. Dibble et al., Parasocial Interaction and Parasocial Relationship: Conceptual Clarification and Critical Assessment of Measures, 42 Human Communication Research 1, 22-23 (2016).

[57] Id.

[58] Id. at 24.

[59] Richard Parfitt, Christina Grimmie, the Forgotten Murder. How Do We Detect and Stop Deranged Fans: A Case Study for Threat Assessment, 10 Journal of Threat Assessment and Management1, 19 (2023).

[60] Id. at 20.

[61] Id.

[62] Id.

[63] Id.

[64] Galella v. Onassis, 533 F. Supp. 1076 (1982).

[65] Id.

[66] See, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-196.3 (2024).

---

Cover Photo by Silvinia Menna on Flickr.