In the News, On the Bar Exam: What the Coldplay Kiss Cam Scandal Teaches About Privacy Torts

If you’ve been buried in bar prep, or just living under a rock, you might have missed one of the summer’s wildest viral stories. At a recent Coldplay concert at Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Massachusetts, the stadium kiss cam zoomed in on Andy Byron, the CEO of a data technology company called Astronomer, and his company’s head of HR, Kristin Cabot. The footage showed them looking flustered as Coldplay’s frontman Chris Martin joked, “Either they’re having an affair or they’re very shy.”

That moment exploded online. Millions watched the clip, speculating about their relationship. Within days, Byron was placed on administrative leave, and shortly after, he resigned. Adding to the drama, a fake apology letter circulated online, falsely attributed to Byron, blaming Coldplay for "turning a private moment into a public spectacle." While the letter was quickly debunked, it raised an interesting legal question: Could someone sue over this kind of public embarrassment? And more importantly for you—what would be the legal basis?

The answer lies in a classic bar exam topic: Invasion of privacy torts.

The Four Privacy Torts You (and How They Apply to the Coldplay Kiss Cam Incident)

Invasion of privacy isn’t a single cause of action. It's four distinct torts, each with its own legal requirements. Here’s a refresher:

1️⃣ Intrusion Upon Seclusion

This tort applies when someone intentionally intrudes into another's private affairs in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. A key factor is whether the individual asserting this claim has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Here, there is likely no valid claim for intrusion upon seclusion. Byron and Cabot were seated in a public stadium, attending a concert, and therefore had no reasonable expectation of privacy in that setting. Courts have consistently held that there is no privacy right in public spaces, especially at large events where filming is customary.

2️⃣ Public Disclosure of Private Facts

This occurs when someone publicizes private, truthful information about a person that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and not of legitimate public concern. Truth is not a defense here—the issue is the private nature of the information.

Here, public disclosure of private facts does not apply either. The conduct in question was publicly observable by thousands in the stadium. There was no disclosure of any private, non-public information. Rather, it was simply a broadcast of a public moment.

3️⃣ Appropriation of Name or Likeness

This privacy tort prohibits the unauthorized use of someone's name or likeness for commercial gain.

Here, there is no claim for appropriation of name or likeness because the individuals' images were used as part of in-concert entertainment and not for any commercial advertising or promotional gain. Kiss cam segments are standard entertainment at concerts and sporting events, and courts may reject appropriation claims in such contexts.

4️⃣ False Light

This privacy tort applies when someone publicizes facts or implications that place a person in a false or misleading light, in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. For public figures, the plaintiff must prove actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).

Here, false light is perhaps the most plausible argument, but it still remains a weak claim. The kiss cam’s broadcast and Chris Martin’s accompanying joke arguably created a misleading impression. However, courts may afford wide latitude for entertainment at public events. Furthermore, implied consent to being filmed when attending such events poses a significant hurdle to any false light claim.

Consent: The Dealbreaker

A key defense to any invasion of privacy claim is consent, which can be either express or implied.

Express consent occurs when an individual explicitly agrees to being filmed or photographed, often through clear contractual terms, such as those found on event tickets or registration forms. For example, many concert tickets and entry signage include specific language stating that by entering the venue, attendees consent to being recorded or broadcasted for entertainment purposes.

Implied consent arises from the circumstances, where a person’s actions indicate an acceptance of certain conditions. At public events such as concerts, sporting events, or festivals, attendees are generally aware that cameras are in use, including for promotional material, live streams, or entertainment features like kiss cams. The very nature of attending such widely publicized events carries an implicit acknowledgment that one may be filmed or shown on large screens to enhance the fan experience.

Applying this to the Coldplay kiss cam incident, Byron and Cabot were at a highly publicized event, in a large stadium, surrounded by thousands of spectators, with standard in-venue entertainment like a kiss cam. By entering the venue and participating in the concert experience, they provided, at the very least, implied consent to being filmed. Depending on specific language on the tickets and venue signage, they could have provided express consent, too. Even though the moment may have been personally embarrassing, the existence consent serves as a strong legal barrier to any invasion of privacy claim.

Bar Exam Takeaway

This Coldplay incident provides a timely reminder for bar examinees: Just because a public moment is awkward or embarrassing does not mean it gives rise to legal liability. For privacy torts to apply, specific legal elements must be met, and even then, robust defenses like consent can easily defeat a claim.