# Invasion of Privacy Laws by Country: Civil Claims Invasion of privacy laws by country: the civil claim, its elements, defences and remedies in England, California, Canada, Germany, France and Australia. --- Invasion of privacy laws by country give you a civil claim against the person who intruded on your private life or published private information, but the claim has a different name, a different test and different remedies in each place. England and Wales call it misuse of private information, British Columbia and Australia use a statute, Ontario a court-made tort of intrusion, California a statute plus jury elements, and France and Germany their civil code and constitutional law. This guide reads the primary source for each place it covers: England and Wales, California, Canada (Ontario and British Columbia), Germany, France and Australia. The other US states, the rest of Canada including Quebec, Ireland, New Zealand, the rest of Europe, Asia and the Gulf were not read, and nothing is said about them. This is general information, not legal advice. A privacy claim is a lawsuit against a named person or organization, and your own lawyer decides whether it fits your facts.
The short version
10 June 2025the date Australia's statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy began
Up to $20,000the usual range of damages for intrusion upon seclusion in Ontario, as set by the Court of Appeal
$5,000 to $50,000the civil fine per violator under California Civil Code section 1708.8

Sources: OAIC page on the statutory tort; Jones v Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32, as reproduced in a law firm PDF; California Civil Code section 1708.8 on the California Legislature site. Each is described in its own section below.

## A privacy claim asks whether the information was private, not whether it was false A privacy claim protects private life, and the information at issue can be perfectly true. Defamation protects reputation and usually turns on a false statement. Three questions run through every place below: what counts as private, what the defendant did (watched, recorded, accessed or published), and what justifies it (consent, a legal power, the public interest or press freedom). "Intrusion upon seclusion", "public disclosure of private facts" and "misuse of private information" are separate claims with their own elements. Each is brought in a civil court against the person who intruded or published, not as a platform request or a regulator complaint. ## England and Wales: misuse of private information, built on Article 8 In England and Wales the claim is called misuse of private information, and it grew out of the older breach of confidence action. In Campbell v MGN, Lord Nicholls wrote in his speech that the essence of the tort is better encapsulated as misuse of private information, and that the cause of action no longer needed a confidential relationship. The page read, the speech as published by Parliament, contains his speech only, and the speech ends by agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the claim fails, so it should not be read as the outcome of that case, which is not described here. ### Two stages: a reasonable expectation, then a balance From the same speech, the starting point is whether the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the facts disclosed. Lord Nicholls cautioned against importing a stricter "highly offensive" test at that stage. If the expectation exists, the court weighs the right to respect for private life against the right to freedom of expression, and neither automatically prevails. Those rights come from the European Convention on Human Rights, set out in Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 8 gives everyone the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. Article 10 protects freedom of expression and allows restrictions necessary in a democratic society, including for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. In Bloomberg LP v ZXC, [2022] UKSC 5, the Supreme Court gave judgment on 16 February 2022, in the text published by the National Archives. It treated a reasonable expectation of privacy before charge as a legitimate starting point once a person is shown to be under criminal investigation. It said this is not a legal rule or presumption, and that circumstances may show the expectation does not arise or is reduced. It recorded as common ground that there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy once someone is charged. The appeal was dismissed. The 25,000 pound award was not appealed, and the court said it had reservations about letting defamation approaches shape the quantification of damages for misuse of private information, without deciding the point. ### Remedies and the interim injunction rule Because a published secret cannot be unpublished, the fight is often about stopping publication before trial, which section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 governs. On the legislation.gov.uk text of section 12, relief may not be granted to restrain publication before trial unless the court is satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed, and the court must have particular regard to freedom of expression. For material claimed to be journalistic, literary or artistic it must also consider the extent to which the material is, or is about to become, available to the public, and whether publication is in the public interest. The limitation period for this claim was not read. ## California: a statute for intrusion and jury elements for disclosure California has a statute for physical and constructive intrusion and jury elements for public disclosure. The state constitution's privacy clause and how courts apply it between private parties were not read for this guide, so do not assume the constitution gives you a claim against a private publisher. ### Civil Code section 1708.8: physical and constructive invasion The statute, as shown on the California Legislature's site, creates a physical invasion claim and a constructive invasion claim. A physical invasion arises when a person trespasses, including in the airspace above land, to capture an image, sound recording or other impression of the plaintiff in a private, personal or familial activity, in a manner offensive to a reasonable person. A constructive invasion arises when a person attempts, through any device and whether or not there is a trespass, to capture such an impression in an offensive manner, if it could not have been obtained without a trespass unless the device was used. A third limb covers assault or false imprisonment committed to capture such an impression. The remedies are listed in the section. A violator is liable for up to three times the general and special damages caused, punitive damages may be awarded, and a commercial purpose triggers disgorgement of proceeds. A civil fine of $5,000 to $50,000 can be sought by a county counsel or city attorney, and a court may grant equitable relief such as an injunction. It is no defense that nothing was captured or sold. The limits matter as much. The section applies only to captures made in California after January 1, 2010. Republishing material already released by someone else is exempt, and distributing or selling a captured image is a violation only if the person, in the first transaction, knew it was captured unlawfully and received compensation for it, which the plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence. Lawful government and law enforcement activity within the section's terms is not covered, and the section does not limit a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute. The section states no limitation period. ### Public disclosure of private facts: the Judicial Council's elements For publication of private information, the page read is the Judicial Council of California's jury instruction 1801, as reproduced on Justia (the official courts site could not be read for this guide). It lists six elements: the defendant publicized private information about the plaintiff; a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would consider the publicity highly offensive; the defendant knew or recklessly disregarded that; the information was not of legitimate public concern, or lacked a substantial connection to one; the plaintiff was harmed; and the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in the harm. Legitimate public concern is the element with the most room for argument. The instruction lists factors for it: the social value of the information, the extent of the intrusion into privacy, and whether the plaintiff consented, explicitly or by voluntarily seeking public attention or office. The instruction on intrusion into private affairs was not read. ## Canada: Ontario's court-made tort and British Columbia's statute Two Canadian routes were read. ### Ontario: intrusion upon seclusion In Jones v Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32, the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized a common-law tort of intrusion upon seclusion. The court's own website blocks automated reading, so the decision was read as reproduced in a law firm's PDF. It lists three elements: the conduct was intentional, which includes recklessness; the defendant invaded the plaintiff's private affairs or concerns without lawful justification; and a reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive, causing distress, humiliation or anguish. Proof of harm to a recognized economic interest is not an element, so you need not show financial loss. Damages for the intangible interest are ordinarily a modest conventional sum within a range of up to $20,000 where there is no provable pecuniary loss. There the defendant had repeatedly viewed the plaintiff's private bank records, and the court awarded $10,000, with no aggravated or punitive damages. The tort targets deliberate and significant intrusions, not people who are merely unusually sensitive. It is an intrusion tort, so do not assume it covers a private fact that someone only posted. ### British Columbia: the Privacy Act The BC Privacy Act works differently. Section 1 makes it a tort, actionable without proof of damage, for a person to wilfully violate another's privacy without a claim of right. How much privacy a person is entitled to is judged by what is reasonable in the circumstances, weighing the lawful interests of others, the nature and frequency of the conduct and any relationship between the parties. Section 2 lists exceptions: consent, lawful self or property defense, authority by law or a court, and certain duties of public officers. Publishing is also not a violation if it concerns the public interest, is fair comment or is privileged in defamation law, though that does not protect an underlying violation used to get the material. Section 3 makes it a tort, without proof of damage, to use a person's name or likeness to promote goods or services without consent. Section 4 sends these actions to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The remedies were not stated on the page read. Other provinces' statutes and Quebec's civil law were not read. ## Germany and France: personality rights from the constitution and the civil code Both countries protect private life through a written right that a civil court enforces. ### Germany: the general right of personality The Basic Law, in the English translation on the federal legal portal, says in Article 1(1) that human dignity is inviolable and in Article 2(1) that every person has the right to free development of their personality, so far as they do not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral law. The Federal Constitutional Court's Right to be Forgotten I decision, an order of 6 November 2019, shows how this reaches private disputes. The court describes fundamental rights as having indirect effect between private parties: civil courts must apply private law provisions, including general clauses, in light of them, and balance personality rights against press freedom. The general right of personality does not give a person an exclusive right to determine how they are portrayed, nor a right to have all information about oneself deleted from the internet. But the legal order must protect people against being indefinitely confronted in public with their past, and time is a significant factor. There the court reversed a civil judgment over an online press archive and sent the matter back. The general damages clause is section 823(1) of the Civil Code (BGB): anyone who intentionally or negligently and unlawfully injures the life, body, health, freedom, property or another right of another person must compensate the damage (the full wording was read only in summary). Section 253(1) limits money for non-financial damage to cases the law provides, and section 253(2) allows it where body, health, freedom or sexual self-determination is injured. No court source on how the personality right fits those clauses was read, so no rule on money awards is stated. For images, a written rule exists. Section 22 of the Kunsturhebergesetz, as published on the federal legal portal, allows portraits to be distributed or displayed only with the consent of the person depicted. Section 23 lists exceptions, such as portraits from contemporary history and people who appear only incidentally beside a place, which do not apply where a legitimate interest of the person depicted is violated. Section 37 allows destruction of unlawfully distributed copies even without intent or negligence. ### France: Article 9 of the Civil Code Article 9 of the Civil Code, in the consolidated text published on WIPO Lex (a 2019 version, so later amendments were not checked), has two sentences. The first: everyone has the right to respect for their private life. The second lets judges, without prejudice to compensation for the harm suffered, prescribe all measures, such as sequestration and seizure, that prevent or end an invasion of the intimacy of private life, and says these measures may be ordered in summary proceedings where there is urgency. What counts as private life, what defenses the press has and how damages are set come from case law, which was not read. ## Australia: a statutory tort in force since 10 June 2025 The OAIC page on the statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy says it began on 10 June 2025, under Schedule 2 of the Privacy Act. The Schedule itself was read as published with the 2024 amending Act on legislation.gov.au, in part, and the points below come from the OAIC page and that text. An individual can sue another person or organization, and the tort reaches beyond the entities bound by the Australian Privacy Principles. The defendant must have either intruded upon the plaintiff's seclusion or misused information that relates to the plaintiff. The Schedule's cause of action also requires that a person in the plaintiff's position would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in all the circumstances, that the invasion was intentional or reckless, and that it was serious. The plaintiff must show that the public interest in protecting their privacy outweighed any countervailing public interest, such as freedom of expression. The public interest balance therefore sits inside the plaintiff's case. The defenses in the Schedule's text include conduct required or authorized by Australian law or a court order, consent, a reasonable belief that the conduct was necessary to prevent a serious threat to life, health or safety, and conduct incidental to a proportionate defense of persons or property. The OAIC page lists exemptions that include intelligence agencies, law enforcement bodies and, in certain circumstances, journalists, and says the list is not exhaustive. In the Schedule's text the journalist exemption covers professional journalists bound by a code of practice, for collecting, preparing or publishing journalistic material. The court decides remedies, which may include damages, an injunction, a declaration or, per the OAIC, an order requiring an apology. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) has jurisdiction, and the text notes that state courts and the Federal Court also do. The clock is short. If the plaintiff was under 18 when the invasion occurred, proceedings must start before their 21st birthday. Otherwise it is the earlier of one year after becoming aware of the invasion or three years after it occurred. The Schedule's text lets a court allow later filing where filing on time was not reasonable, but not more than six years after the invasion. The OAIC says it has no direct role in administering the tort. ## Six places compared on elements, defenses and remedies The table keeps to what was read, and says "not read" where a point was not confirmed.
PlaceCore elements readDefenses and limits readRemedies read
England and WalesReasonable expectation of privacy, then a balance of Articles 8 and 10Freedom of expression; public interest; no expectation once charged (common ground in ZXC)Damages; injunction, with a pre-trial restraint rule in section 12
CaliforniaPhysical or constructive capture of private activity; or publicized private facts, highly offensive, not of public concernRepublication exempt; capture only after 1 January 2010; public concernUp to treble damages, punitive, disgorgement, fine, injunction
OntarioIntentional or reckless invasion of private affairs, highly offensive, no lawful justificationTargets deliberate, significant intrusions; no claim for the unusually sensitiveDamages usually up to $20,000; no proof of economic loss
British ColumbiaWilful violation of privacy without a claim of right; no proof of damageConsent, authority, public interest, fair comment, privilegeNot read
GermanyGeneral right of personality balanced against press freedom; portraits need consentContemporary history and other exceptions in section 23 KUG; time is a factorDamages clause in section 823(1) BGB; destruction of copies under section 37 KUG
FranceRight to respect for private life, Article 9Not readCompensation; sequestration, seizure and other measures, urgently in summary proceedings
AustraliaSerious, intentional or reckless intrusion or misuse of information; reasonable expectation; public interest balanceConsent; lawful authority; listed exemptions; one or three year clockDamages, injunction, apology order
Read across the rows, three patterns appear. The balance with expression sits in different places: inside the defendant's defense in British Columbia, as a second stage in England, and inside the plaintiff's own case in Australia. Ontario and British Columbia do not make the claimant prove financial loss. And the one court range read, Ontario's, is a modest conventional sum. ## Which claim fits which facts: a decision table The table lists common situations and the claim families read above, with the main risk of each. It is a starting point for a lawyer, not a conclusion.
Your factsClaim family that may fitMain riskWeak if
Someone recorded you in a private spaceIntrusion: Ontario tort, California section 1708.8, Australian seclusion limb, BC statuteProof of the capture and of the place being privateThe space was public or you consented
A true private fact was postedMisuse of information in England and Australia, disclosure in California, Article 9 in FranceThe public interest defense and press freedomThe fact is of legitimate public concern
Your photo was publishedGerman portrait rules, BC name or likeness section, French Article 9Exceptions such as contemporary historyYou are only incidental in the frame
An old, true story about you stays onlineGerman balancing with time as a factor; other claims rarely fitThe court may side with press archivesThe matter is still of public concern
The last row is the hardest. A true, lawfully reported story about a court case or a public act is not private, and no route here makes it so. The German decision shows the limit: time is a factor, but there is no right to have everything deleted. ## What a privacy claim will not do for your search results A civil judgment binds the parties to the case. It does not delete a page from a website you did not sue, and it does not change what a search engine or an AI assistant lists. Two steps usually follow a win: serving the order on the host or publisher, and a separate request to the search engine, which has its own procedure and criteria. A claim can also backfire. A lawsuit about a private fact can draw more attention than the fact ever did, and in England the pre-trial restraint rule sets a demanding test. Four neighboring routes are covered elsewhere. A companion guide compares defamation laws by country, and separate country guides go deeper on defamation. Another covers non-consensual intimate images, which have criminal offenses and removal tracks of their own; start there if your case involves such images. A fourth covers state data deletion rights, which run against businesses that hold your data, not against publishers. ### An invented scenario: the order of operations This scenario is invented, with generic parties. A person in an Australian state finds that a former neighbor posted an unedited video of the inside of their home, filmed through a window, on a public forum.
An order of operations for a private-space video
  1. Preserve the evidenceCapture the post, the page address, the date and the account name. Do not contact the poster until you have taken advice, because a reply can prompt deletion before you have a record.
  2. Report to the platformUse the platform's privacy or intimate-content form. It is a separate track from a lawsuit and can limit the spread while the legal question is assessed.
  3. Get advice and note the clockUnder the OAIC page, the limit is the earlier of one year from awareness or three years from the invasion. Tell the lawyer the date you found the video.
  4. Choose the claim and seek the stop orderIntrusion into a private space fits the first limb on the OAIC page, and an injunction is a listed remedy. The lawyer will test reasonable expectation, the public interest balance and any exemption.
  5. Send the order to the host, then ask the search engineDo both only after the order exists. They are separate requests with separate rules.
A claim has a ceiling, and it is set by the nature of the information. ## Your next step: set the clock, collect the record, then choose the claim Start with time, the one thing that cannot be undone. Note the date you first found the material, preserve the evidence, and speak to a lawyer where the defendant lives or the publication was made before any message goes to the other side.
If this is happening to you now

Save the evidence, do not reply to the person, and have a local lawyer assess your claim and your clock. When you want a second pair of eyes on what search engines and AI assistants show about the material, Reputation Partners runs a private review that sits beside the legal work and never replaces it. Start with the private audit.

## Questions people ask ### Is invasion of privacy a crime or a civil claim? It can be both, but this guide covers the civil claim only: the person affected sues the person who intruded or published, for damages, an injunction or another order. Criminal law is separate, and in several places it covers specific acts such as sharing intimate images. A lawyer can tell you whether a criminal complaint adds anything. ### Do I need to prove I lost money? Not in two places read. The Ontario Court of Appeal said proof of harm to a recognized economic interest is not an element of intrusion upon seclusion, and the British Columbia statute makes the tort actionable without proof of damage. Check other places with a local lawyer. ### Can I sue over a true statement? Sometimes. A privacy claim needs private information and an unjustified publication or intrusion, not a false statement. A true statement of legitimate public concern is the weakest case wherever a public interest test was read. Defamation, by contrast, often turns on falsity, so the two claims answer different questions and a lawyer may plead both. ### Does a privacy win remove the content from search results? No. A judgment binds the parties to the case and does not change what a search engine or an AI assistant lists. After an order you usually still need to serve it on the host or publisher and make a separate request to the search engine. ### How long do I have to bring a claim? The only clock read for this guide is Australia's: the earlier of one year after you become aware of the invasion or three years after it occurred, or before the 21st birthday if you were under 18 at the time. For other places, ask a local lawyer before anything else.