In 2013, the plaintiff, a 35-year-old photographer and photography business owner, was a cosmetic surgery patient of Dr. Enraquita Lopez, a plastic surgeon. Shortly thereafter, in July 2013, the 35-year-old photographer met someone on an online dating website/application called OKCupid. During the course of her dating communications with the individual, she told him about her photography business and encouraged him to visit her website to see her photographs. On Aug. 16, 2013, the photographer was in the middle of an OKCupid chat with the person she previously met online when he told her that she should “Google” search her own name. When she asked him why, he told her that he performed a “Google” search of her name and it resulted in some pictures of her that she might not want other people to see. As a result, the photographer immediately performed a “Google” search of her full name. The search resulted in naked “before” and “after” photographs of her breasts posted on Aesthetic Laser Center’s web page in a manner that contained her real name. The image results from the search also included various other photos of her and her photography work. She claimed her nude, reconstructive images were allowed to be seen by anyone performing a “Google Images” search of her or her photography business. It was undisputed that the woman gave consent for images her to be displayed anonymously on the Aesthetic Laser Center website. However, she never consented for her name to be associated with the photographs. The 35-year-old photographer sued Dr. Enraquita Lopez; Lopez’s business, Aesthetic Laser Center; the website designer, Symar Chrysalis Web CMS; and a now defunct corporation that did business as Symar, Enticen-Media, LLC. Symar and Enticen-Media were ultimately dismissed from the case. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the actions of Lopez and Aesthetic Laser Center constituted a breach of contract, public disclosure of private facts, appropriation of name or likeness, general negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Counsel also contended that Lopez failed to meet the standard of care by not preventing the negligent release of the plaintiff’s private medical information and that Lopez’s negligence constituted medical malpractice. However, only the general-negligence and breach-of-fiduciary-duty causes of action went to the jury. Defense counsel admitted that the photos, which the plaintiff consented to be posted anonymously on the Aesthetic Laser Center website, unintentionally and unknowingly were searchable using the plaintiff’s name for an unknown number of days on the Internet. However, defense counsel argued that Lopez and Aesthetic Laser Center uploaded the photographs of the plaintiff consistent with how they had been trained by the web design company, Symar, and that they believed that the photos would be completely anonymous. Thus, counsel argued that due to inadequate training, Lopez and Aesthetic Laser Center mistakenly “filed” the photographs in a file that contained the plaintiff’s real name and that as a result, when Lopez and Aesthetic Laser Center uploaded the photographs to the Aesthetic Laser Center website, the plaintiff’s name was included in the jpg photo name and as such, it unknowingly became searchable on Google when anyone typed in the plaintiff’s real name. The defense computer forensics expert testified about the computer forensic recovery of the images and how the whole mistake happened. The expert also testified about the recovery of text messages and emails exchanged between the plaintiff and Lopez after the incident, which contained the plaintiff’s reaction to the error, what Lopez and Aesthetic Laser Center were doing to try to rectify the situation, and the plaintiff requesting liposuction (i.e. more cosmetic surgery). In addition, the expert opined the training given by Symar was deficient., The plaintiff testified that she began experiencing anxiety attacks and lost a lot of sleep over the incident. She also testified that she felt like her reputation had been ruined and that her privacy had been violated. As a result, she began seeking mental health treatment and counseling with her treating physician, who is a licensed marriage and family therapist. The plaintiff’s treating therapist documented the plaintiff’s anxiety attacks, and diagnosed her with an anxiety disorder, depression, and an adjustment disorder stemming from the publication of the photos of her breasts. The plaintiff had 134 counseling sessions with her treater before being released in 2017. She was not prescribed any prescription medications. However, she did take off several weeks of work right after the discovery of the images, and she claimed that, thereafter, she was not working her typical number of hours nor able to give her best efforts for many months. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award the plaintiff $300,000, including $238,000 in past general (non-economic) damages, $50,000 in future general (non-economic) damages, and $12,000 in special (economic) damages for her loss of income. Defense counsel contended that the plaintiff exaggerated her reaction and that her lengthy course of therapy was due to many life factors, and not just the publication of the photos. Thus, defense counsel suggested that a reasonable award would be $5,000 for the plaintiff’s past wage loss and $15,000 for the plaintiff’s past mental suffering and emotional distress.