[NSFW if you mis-pronounce] Does Ms. Titi Pierce have a case against Ellen DeGeneres?

This is way overblown. And for her to say that no one EVER has mispronounced her name before is bullshit. As a kid we would have had a field day with it. As an adult, we still would have. Because, really, we all are just 12 year olds in our minds.
She is doing more to spread the name than Ellen did. I hope this is thrown out because I think Ellen is hilarious.

Oh please.

Her name on an advertisement sign on various lawns makes it in the public domain. That is different from someone that goes through a phone book or census records looking for funny names.

And the whole thing would have been forgotten if she didn’t file a lawsuit. It’s the 2016 version of the Barbra Streisand effect.

She should sue her parents instead.

The short answer to whether she has a case is “no.”

Ms. Pierce is suing for invasion of privacy, defamation, and emotional distress. Let’s take these in reverse. She basically can’t win on emotional distress unless she wins on one of the other charges. This is because a charge of emotional distress requires one of two things: (1) the intentional infliction of emotional harm, or (2) the infliction of emotional harm through grossly negligent behavior. There’s no way for Pierce to prove (1), and in fact there’s far too much evidence against it (Ellen’s show doesn’t focus on her, and it has engaged in this sort of joke time and time again without incident). So this leaves Pierce with option (2), which for all intents and purposes is going to require that Ellen broke some other law that subsequently caused the emotional distress. A further complicating factor is that emotional distress requires physical harm. That is, Pierce’s distress must be so bad that it has caused prolonged symptoms. She must also prove the link between her emotional distress and those physical symptoms.

As for defamation, the joke is her name. But a defamation charge requires that the information shared be either false or (in some jurisdictions) grossly misleading. As “Titi Pierce” really is her name, it’s hard to say that the joke plays on anything false or misleading. Furthermore, there are protections in place for comedy and satire that make defamation charges exceptionally difficult to win. So even if Pierce’s claim is based on Ellen’s comedic mispronunciation, she is unlikely to get very far with that.

The only place where she has anything close to a case in the invasion of privacy charge. By showing the entire sign, including Pierce’s phone number, Ellen has arguably thrust her into an unwanted limelight. That said, Ellen has not intruded on Pierce’s private affairs, she has not publicly disclosed private information (Pierce’s first name is public, even if not widely known prior to this), and she has not place Pierce in a false light to the public (again, “Titi Pierce” really is her name). These are three of the four qualifications for invasion of privacy, and Pierce’s claim falls on each of them. The only possible case she could make is that Ellen has appropriated her name for commercial advantage. But this won’t work because (a) Pierce has already placed herself and the sign in the public eye (which is an absolute defense against invasion of privacy charges so long as no further crime has been committed, such as breaking into someone’s house to get information), and (b) those pesky laws protecting comedy and satire—the same ones that let Leno read every typo ever printed in the Palookaville Post—will again protect Ellen and her show.

@zenvelo “Public domain” refers to intellectual property. Pierce’s sign is not in the public domain. It is, however, in the public eye. The distinction may seem minor, but the law is built on minor distinctions.

It really is incredulous that anyone believes they could paint a sign designed for ADVERTISING with the logo TITI PIERCE and then take offense from ridicule and teasing.

I think that what Ms. Degeneres is doing is insulting, in poor taste and somewhat malicious – whether that’s her intent or not (and I would suspect “not”, because I don’t think that as a rule she is intentionally malicious toward people she doesn’t know). Nevertheless, as @SavoirFaire says, she doesn’t have much of a case.

In addition to that, she should probably heed Mark Twain’s good advice that “It’s not wise to insult a man who buys ink by the barrel.” (In this case we could substitute ‘pixels’ or ‘electrons’ for the allegorical ink that Ms. D ‘buys’, and substitute ‘sue’ for ‘insult’. So it’s kind of a stretch, but the allegory is apt.)

I would expect Ellen to find a way to apologize – with humor, even – and make it right with the woman before this suit wastes any court time.

Whether Ms. Pierce has a case or not, it seems highly distasteful to make fun of someone’s name, in addition to making fun of it on national television and broadcasting the woman’s phone number.

^ You mean the number she put up on a billboard?

That’s just the point. It isn’t as though DeGeneres went through the phone book or the voter roles or found the name on a gravestone. If you choose to place the word titi on a placard to garner attention, how can you bitch about the attention you receive?

She probably could and there would be lawyers out there who would take the case but they had better hope they don’t get me on the jury.

@Seek, how would you feel if you found out that your name was being made fun of on national television and starting receiving phone calls from strangers at all hours of the day? That, to me, isn’t humorous.

That is the exact purpose of the sign. The phone number is there to generate phone calls from strangers, and Ellen has neither defaced nor distorted it in any way. To merely broadcast pictures of a sign as proof that “I’m not making this up” must certainly be legal. If your name happens to be a practical joke and YOU choose to advertise it, what possible logic should allow you to collect money from those who cash in on the joke that YOU put out there?

I’ll just say that the Pat R. Cox Tax Attorney firm here in Tampa recently got sick of it and changed its name to Cox Law.

Sometimes it’s your own fault for putting the name on the sign.

Making fun of people based on names is childish not adult thing to do.

@Seek that’s REALLY funny!

@imrainmaker of course it’s childish, but should you be allowed to cash in because of it?

The cynic in me guesses that Titi Pierce doesn’t honestly believe she has a winnable case, and probably isn’t even really offended, but rather is using this suit as a means to cash in on Ellen’s skit and further generate public awareness of her business. You can’t buy the kind of advertising that Ellen Degeneres just handed her.

Is this a publicity stunt? Of course it is.

^ quite possibly. There is a car sales yard here – Mike Hunt’s Wholesale Cars. Look at the comments on his Facebook page (see link). “Great name” etc. He knows people snicker at his name. As long as they’re buying cars (or in Ms Titty Pierce’s case – houses), who cares! At least they won’t forget the name.

If someone has their name and number on a billboard, it wouldn’t be too smart to have that phone ringing at the same place they sleep. If they’re smart, it’s an office phone and they get the message when they get to the office.

There’s no such thing as bad publicity.