Publication is not Publishing: Ninth Circuit Says Insurer Must Defend Privacy Suit
Insights for Insurers Alert | 1 min read
Mar 18, 2020
Reversing a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer, the Ninth Circuit recently held that an insurer was required to defend a putative class action alleging that the insured retailer collected and sold customers' personal information in violation of California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act. Brighton Collectibles, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, No. 18-56403, 2:18-cv-01107-JFW-GJS (9th Cir. March 16, 2020).
The insured argued that the claim triggered its personal injury coverage, which applies to personal injury caused by an offense arising out of the insured's business, which includes "oral or written publication of material that violates a person's right of privacy." Based on California Supreme Court precedent holding that the overriding purpose of the Credit Card Act is to protect the personal privacy of consumers, the Ninth Circuit found that the class action alleged an invasion of privacy sufficient to trigger the insurer's duty to defend. In so ruling, the court rejected the insurer's assertion that coverage was barred by the policies' exclusions for "advertising, publishing, broadcasting or telecasting done by or for" the insured. The court stated: "The word 'publishing' in this coverage exclusion cannot be read to have the same meaning as the word 'publication' in the personal injury provision. Such a reading would exclude coverage for virtually any publication over which [the insured] might realistically be sued, rendering the policies' express coverage for publications that violate privacy rights practically meaningless."
The court also noted that the "grouping of 'publishing' with 'advertising…, broadcasting or telecasting' in the coverage exclusion suggests that the exclusion applies only to broad, public-facing marketing activities." Consequently, the plaintiff's allegation that the insured sold customer information to select third-party marketers constituted "publication" of the information within the meaning of the personal injury coverage grant, but not widespread public-facing "publishing" within the meaning of the exclusion.
Related People
Related Capabilities
Featured Insights

Webinar
Aug 5, 2026
April Toy Moderates HNBA Webinar on AI in the Practice of Law

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Aug 5, 2026
2026 AI Compliance: Upcoming Laws Every Organization Needs to Know

Press Release
July 21, 2026 | Updated on August 4, 2026
Three Hinshaw Attorneys Named to the 2026 National Black Lawyers’ Top 40 Under 40 List

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)


