|
2338 REVIEW DENIED Plaintiffs who spoke to defendants in the presence of strangers and restaurant waiters did not have a sufficiently reasonable expectation of privacy to justify actions for intrusion or the unauthorized recording of confidential communications; the practice of charging for calls to apparently toll-free phone numbers is a matter of sufficiently legitimate public interest to prevent publication of information about persons who sell such numbers from being a tortious invasion of privacy; investigative reporters posing as potential investors did not have an obligation to disclose their identities to persons they were investigating; plaintiffs who spoke to reporters posing as investors in the presence of strangers and restaurant waiters were not speaking in reliance on the reporters representations of themselves as investors.CitationSIMTEL v NBC (Toll Free Number) 71 CA4 1066 [See: PenC 632; Miller v NBC 187 CA3 1463; Shulman v Group W 18 C4 200, T/AT 7/98; Coulter v B of A 28 CA4 923, T/AT 11/94]
|
|
