In James v.Bob Ross Buick,where James had been fired from a car dealership that then sent letters to customers under his name,James sued for invasion of privacy and the appeals court held that:
A)he had no case because no harm was done to his reputation
B)he had no case because he was already a "public figure" to the customers
C)he had a case because his name had been misappropriated for commercial benefit
D)he had a case because the dealership had promised him $2 for every such letter sent but did not pay him
E)none of the other choices

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Misappropriation is a type of invasion of privacy that involves using someone's name, likeness, or identity for commercial gain without their consent. In this case, the car dealership used James' name without his permission to send letters to customers, which could be seen as a violation of his privacy rights. The fact that they benefited financially from using his name also supports James' claim. The other choices (A) and (B) are not relevant to this case, and (D) may be a separate issue but not the basis of the invasion of privacy claim.

In James V