Final answer:
A prima facie case for false light involves publication by the defendant of information placing the plaintiff in a false light that would be offensive to a reasonable person. An example is the false implication of drug use in a Star magazine article about Katie Holmes. Public figures face a higher burden of proof, requiring demonstration of actual malice or recklessness.
Step-by-step explanation:
To establish a prima facie case for invasion of privacy based on publication of facts placing a person in a false light, the following elements are typically required: (i) there must be a publication of facts about the plaintiff by the defendant that places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye; and (ii) the 'false light' must be something that would be highly offensive or objectionable to a reasonable person under the circumstances.
In the provided example involving Katie Holmes, the publication by Star magazine could be considered as placing her in a false light that insinuated drug use, which was not the focus of the actual article. In such cases, if the plaintiff is a private individual, they might also argue that the publisher was negligent in not ensuring the accuracy before publishing. Different standards apply when the claimant is a public figure, as established in cases like New York Times v. Sullivan, where public figures must demonstrate actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth.