New Jersey Supreme Court rules false light lawsuits must meet same tight deadline as defamation claims
Trenton, NJ – Wednesday — A man accused of dealing drugs to high school students waited too long to sue the person who made the claim, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, cementing that false light privacy cases must follow the same strict one-year filing deadline as defamation lawsuits.
Salve Chipola had sued Sean Flannery nearly two years after Flannery told a school official that Chipola was a drug dealer who provided students with drugs and alcohol. The accusation led to Chipola being banned from Clearview Regional High School after a police officer blocked his entry and handed him a letter barring him from the premises. Chipola claimed the statements were false and damaged his reputation, causing emotional distress.
But because he filed the suit nearly 24 months later, the Supreme Court unanimously found the claim was time-barred. The justices sided with lower court rulings that relied on the 2009 Appellate Division decision in Swan v. Boardwalk Regency Corp., which held that false light claims are closely tied to defamation and should share the same one-year statute of limitations.
The Court emphasized that while defamation and false light differ in what aspects of reputation or dignity they protect, both are rooted in the publication of falsehoods that cause reputational harm. That overlap, the Court said, makes the shorter deadline appropriate for both.
In its ruling, the Court also noted that giving false light cases a longer time to be filed—such as the two-year limit used in personal injury lawsuits—could undermine free speech protections by creating legal uncertainty for longer periods. It also warned that a longer window might blur the lines between false light and defamation so significantly that defamation becomes irrelevant as a legal tool.
The decision is consistent with how other states treat false light claims and upholds New Jersey’s long-standing interest in balancing reputational protections with freedom of speech through narrowly drawn statutes of limitations.
The Court’s opinion, authored by Justice Hoffman, was joined by Chief Justice Rabner and Justices Patterson, Pierre-Louis, Wainer Apter, Fasciale, and Noriega.