Jessie Nizewitz has sued Viacom and several production companies for failing to provide adequate pixelation of her genitalia during an episode of the VH1 show “Dating Naked,” on which she appears as a contestant, or whatever people on gimmicky destination dating shows are called. (“Failure to provide adequate pixelation” is my paraphrase of her claims, but isn’t that the greatest cause of action ever? Another good one I saw was “insufficient junk-blurring.”) It’s a pretty intriguing idea: what duty do the producers of a program that prominently features nudity—including in its title—have to protect the performers from actual nudity?
(If you simply must see the episode, here it is, queued up to her date with a dude named Keegan about 10:45 in.)
The New York Post apparently broke the story, but it doesn’t exactly have much legal analysis. The complaint isn’t up on the New York court system’s website yet, so I had to turn to Courthouse News to find out what Nizewitz is actually claiming:
She seeks an injunction, takedown, and punitive damages of more than $10 million for breach of oral contract, privacy invasion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and gross negligence.
The breach of contract claim seems like the most obvious one to me. She claims, essentially, that she agreed to appear on the show on the condition that they blur her privates at all times:
“I have no problem going to a beach in a bikini or people seeing me on TV in a bikini,” Nizewitz said in a statement released to EW by her attorney, Matthew J. Blit. “Although I went on this show knowing that I would be nude while taping it I was told that my private parts would be blurred for TV. If you watch an episode, you will see that the blur actually makes it less revealing than a bikini would. Obviously, I did not expect the world to see my private parts, this is not what I anticipated or what any other contestants on the show anticipated.”
Seeing as how the FCC might require exactly the same sort of thing, that could seem like a fair exchange. On the other hand, if the producers were agreeing to something they already had a legal obligation to do, would that render it illusory due to lack of consideration? Am I getting too law-wonky for something involving naked people? I don’t think so, but you might.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress seems to me like a stretch, mostly because of the “intentional” part.
Invasion of privacy also seems questionable, because while I do believe she was wronged, it might be hard to convince a jury on that issue.
I could see negligence, perhaps, but I’m not sold on gross negligence.
The damage claims also bear a bit of scrutiny. She’ll have to substantiate the $10 million claim. Media coverage of the case doesn’t offer much in the way of explaining the tangible harm, aside from the embarrassment and shame that seems to come from living in a nation full of prudish assholes who love to demand that women expose themselves, and then shame them for doing so. I don’t doubt that she has experienced emotional distress, not to mention mockery on social media. The defendants might try to make something of the part in the episode where she talks about feeling comfortable naked (“I’m extremely comfortable in my own skin. Honestly, being naked, to me, means absolutely nothing.”) because, like I said before, we live in a nation of prudish assholes.
The part that the New York Post chose to highlight, however, does not seem like a recoverable injury:
Nizewitz’s suit names Viacom, which operates VH1, and two production companies, Firelight Entertainment and Lighthearted Entertainment.
“I think they owe me a huge apology,” Nizewitz said.
She added that the show cost her a “budding relationship” with a man she had been seeing for a month.
“He never called me again after the show aired. I would have hoped we could have had a long-term relationship. He was employed, Jewish, in his 30s and that’s pretty much ideal,” Nizewitz said.
I very much doubt you can hold Viacom, et al liable for that particular event. Besides that, if the show is in fact the reason he stopped calling, he sounds like an ass. It’s not clear from the article, but if he knew she was going to be on a show called “Dating Naked,” and only got miffed when actual nudity occurred, that’s….well, there’s a word for it. On the other hand, if she didn’t mention to a guy she’d been seeing for a month that she was going to be on a show called “Dating Naked,” whatever happened after that is definitely not on Viacom. (I’m not trying to judge anyone per se, I’m just saying that appearing on a dating show might be seen by many as relevant information during the courtship process.)
Sorry this happened to you, Miss Nizewitz, but perhaps you have a chance to make legal history.
As an aside, “Dating Naked” seems to me like the kind of show that appeals to people who are too timid to just watch porn, even in the privacy of their own homes.
