Houston v. Penzone, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0511 (App. Div. I, June 25, 2026) (J. Gaona) https://coa1.azcourts.gov/Portals/1/OpinionFiles/Div1/2026/1%20CA-CV%2025-0511%20Houston%20v.%20Penzone.pdf?ver=u4-IDX9YzrHmETmKlmGt4A%3D%3D

TORT OF FALSE LIGHT REQUIRES PROOF OF PLAINTIFF-SPECIFIC FACTS AND ABSENCE OF COMMONALITY OF INJURY AMONG ALL MEMBERS OF PROPOSED CLASS RENDERS TORT INAPPROPRIATE FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office had a practice of posting mug shots and personal information of people they had arrested on its website without stating the individuals had not been convicted and were presumed innocent. Plaintiff was arrested for assault, and his mugshot was posted with other personal information including his birthdate for three days on the sheriff website labeled “Mugshot Lookup.” The charges were subsequently dismissed, but not before the post was “scraped” and republished “forever” on the internet. There was no disclaimer that plaintiff had not been convicted and was presumed innocent accompanying the post.

After a failed federal court action plaintiff moved to certify this class action in Maricopa Country Superior Court alleging the tort of false light. The class was defined to include all individuals arrested and booked in the Maricopa County Jail where their mugshots and personal data was posted between September 24, 2021 and September 9, 2024 when the appropriate disclaimer was added to such posts. The superior court denied the motion finding the tort of false light requires evaluation of each plaintiff's individual injuries  on a “case by case basis.” The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed.

Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 23(a)(2)(3) &(b) among other things requires a commonality of harm and damages to all members of the class—class claims must be “fairly encompassed by the named plaintiff's claims.”

The tort of false light requires proof that “a major misrepresentation of [plaintiff's] character, history, activities or beliefs,” such that “serious offense may reasonably be expected to be taken by a reasonable [person] in [plaintiff's] position.”

(a) the false light in which the other was placed would be

highly offensive to a reasonable person, and

(b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard

as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in

which the other would be placed.

 Thus, while the “reasonable person” requirement is an objective standard this does not automatically render a false claim suitable for class action.

[Plaintiff]failed to prove commonality or typicality because he can't prove

the Sheriff's publication put any other person in an actionable “false light,”

let alone that all “class members have suffered the same injury” (or any

injury at all). As applied, commonality and typicality under Rule 23(a)

require much more than the mere fact that the Sheriff published the

mugshots and personal information of all putative class members on

the “Mugshot Lookup” website.