Christoff v. Nestlé USA, Inc.

In 1986, Nestlé Canada (NC) contracted with model Russell Christoff (plaintiff). Christoff accepted $250 in payment for a photoshoot; if NC decided to use one of the photos on its Taster’s Choice coffee labels, NC would pay Christoff $2,000; and any other uses were to be negotiated. NC then used the photo on its Taster’s Choice coffee labels without informing or paying Christoff. Between 1998 and 2002, without Christoff’s knowledge or consent, Nestlé USA, Inc. (Nestlé) (defendant) used Christoff’s photo on its international distribution of labels on different varieties of coffee and in advertisements across various forms of visual media. Christoff learned of the use and sued Nestlé in California Superior Court in 2003. One of Christoff’s claims was the statutory claim of unauthorized commercial use of another’s likeness (UCUAL), known in other jurisdictions as invasion of privacy by commercial appropriation. A crucial issue arose: whether the single-publication rule, codified as the Uniform Single Publication Act (USPA), applied to UCUAL actions concerning the nondefamatory use of photos. The USPA limited plaintiffs to one cause of action per publication of an allegedly defamatory or otherwise tortious statement; if applicable, it would limit Christoff’s causes of action and determine when the statute of limitations (SOL) began to run. The trial court ruled that the USPA was inapplicable because Christoff did not claim that the use of his photo was defamatory. At trial, the jury found that Nestlé committed UCUAL and ordered payment to Christoff of around $16 million. Nestlé appealed. The California Court of Appeal held that the USPA applied to UCUAL claims concerning the nondefamatory use of photos and that the SOL began running when Nestlé first published the label or with each new publication of the label. Nestlé appealed to the California Supreme Court.