Part 4: Beyond Federal Law — Bailey Broadrick’s Emotional Distress and Privacy Claims Under Connecticut Law
Disclaimer: This article is based on the Verified Complaint in Broadrick v. Gilroy, Case No. 3:24-cv-01772-VAB (D. Conn.). The allegations are unproven, and no liability has been established. The case is pending.
Bailey Broadrick’s lawsuit does more than invoke a powerful new federal remedy under 15 U.S.C. § 6851. It also alleges multiple violations of state law — grounded in centuries-old principles of privacy, trust, and emotional well-being. In Part 4 of our series, we explore Bailey’s claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and promissory estoppel under Connecticut law.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)
To succeed on an IIED claim under Connecticut law, a plaintiff must show that:
- The defendant intended to cause emotional distress, or knew it was likely;
- The conduct was extreme and outrageous;
- The conduct caused the distress; and
- The distress was severe.
Bailey’s complaint alleges conduct that any jury might find outrageous. It describes how Gilroy:
- Distributed her intimate photos online, including to strangers and to her family;
- Used AI to fabricate explicit deepfake images depicting sex acts she never performed;
- Uploaded surreptitious nude photos taken while she was asleep and recovering from chemotherapy;
- Wrote captions such as “Bailey would be in tears if she knew how many guys were jerking to her naked body.”
The emotional toll has been devastating. Bailey’s complaint alleges not only shame, isolation, and depression, but physical harm — including an increase in cancer markers that her doctor attributed to stress. That’s the kind of severe harm Connecticut courts have long recognized in IIED cases.
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED)
While IIED requires deliberate cruelty, NIED covers reckless or careless behavior. A defendant can be liable if their conduct created an unreasonable risk of emotional harm, that harm was foreseeable, and it caused illness or bodily injury.
Gilroy’s alleged conduct — betraying Bailey’s trust and publishing sensitive content she shared only under a strict promise of confidentiality — falls well within the scope of “unreasonable risk.” And the result? Stress so severe that it impacted her cancer recovery. That’s not just foreseeable — it’s tragic.
Invasion of Privacy: Unreasonable Publicity
Connecticut law recognizes a right to privacy — and imposes liability when someone gives unreasonable publicity to another’s private life, in a way that would be offensive to a reasonable person and is not of legitimate public concern.
Revenge porn is the textbook example. Courts around the country have found that the unauthorized sharing of nude photos or sexual content is the very definition of unreasonable publicity. Bailey is a private figure. Her images were never meant to be public. Publishing them alongside her full name, employer, and LinkedIn profile makes the invasion even more egregious.
False Light
In addition to violating her privacy, Gilroy’s use of deepfake images opens the door to a false light claim — a form of defamation that covers misleading, humiliating portrayals of someone’s character or conduct.
According to the complaint, Bailey never consented to be filmed performing the sexual acts depicted in several posts. In fact, she asserts that those images are entirely fake — generated using AI, and designed to make people believe she did things she never did. False. Misleading. Devastating.
Promissory Estoppel
One of Bailey’s most poignant claims is for promissory estoppel. It’s a basic principle of fairness: if someone makes a clear promise and another person relies on it — to their detriment — the law may enforce that promise.
Here, Bailey says she would never have shared private photos if Gilroy hadn’t promised to keep them secret. That promise was clear. Her reliance was reasonable. And the consequences of his betrayal were life-altering.
A Civil Case With Criminal Implications
Though this is a civil suit, the complaint references conduct that may violate Connecticut’s criminal laws — including unauthorized voyeurism and harassment. But Bailey isn’t asking the criminal system to deliver justice. She’s using the civil courts to take back control — to protect her name, her body, and her future.
In the next post, we’ll explore the remedies Bailey seeks — including a permanent injunction to stop any future sharing of her images and statutory damages that could total hundreds of thousands of dollars.
