The Coldplay Couple: A Cautionary Tale

By: Karina Chatha

This past summer, the world was locked in the drama of internet strangers with the “Coldplay Couple”. The incident occurred over a KissCam at a Coldplay concert, where the camera caught a man and a woman in an embrace.[1] However, once they realized they were on camera, they ducked and hid their faces, leading Chris Martin, Coldplay’s singer, to quip “either they’re having an affair or they’re very shy.”[2] Someone in the crowd recorded the KissCam on the Jumbotron and uploaded the video to the popular video-sharing platform, TikTok.

This video went viral immediately, garnering over 80 million views. Within 24 hours, members of the internet discovered that these two people were in separate marriages and decided it was likely they were having an affair. Members of the internet also noticed that the members of this couple worked together—one as the CEO of the company Astronomer, and the other as Astronomer’s head of HR.[4] Not only had members of the internet found the people in the video who had been recorded and posted online without their knowledge or consent, they had also found the spouses of both people, and children of the CEO.[5] Within hours, a media firestorm had occurred, with articles being written, comments under posts and videos, and speculation on every level. Publications such as the Guardian, Rolling Stone, NBC News, and USA Today have all reported on the “Coldplay Couple,” inviting more speculation about their marriages and jobs. In the weeks after the spectacle, both resigned from their roles at Astronomer.[7]

Many view this situation as ‘they got what was coming’. From a moral standpoint, many internet users were happy to see a couple that were seemingly flouting marital vows facing public scrutiny and embarrassment. But celebrating this can lead to a slippery slope when it comes to one’s right to privacy. At the end of the day, we have no idea of the inner workings of the relationship between this couple, or of their relationships with their spouses. These people didn’t know they were being recorded or being posted online. Members of their families, who were nowhere near the concert, were dragged into the spectacle. What once were private individuals are no longer. On September 30, 2025, months after the incident, the Daily Mail published paparazzi pictures taken of the former CEO and his wife.[9] When applauding the internet for making strangers viral, it might only be a short time before moments that you aren’t proud of are reaching over 50 million people online. If that were to happen, getting legal remedy may be more difficult than you think, because while society has moved firmly into the world of the internet, the law remains frustratingly behind.

The cornerstone of American privacy law comes from a Harvard Law Review article called The Right to Privacy, written by future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren.[10] In the paper, they define the right to privacy as ‘the right to be let alone’.[11] Specifically, they took issue with how invasive the press can be, writing that the press “overstepp[ed] in every direction the obvious bounds of propriety and decency,” filling their pages with “idle gossip.”[12] Later, Professor Prosser would discuss the tort of invasion of privacy, dividing it into four distinct sections.[13] The four torts are intrusion on seclusion, publication of private facts, false light invasion of privacy and appropriation of personality.[14] Most relevant to this situation is the tort for publication of private facts, which is when “one who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.”[15]

However, while this tort looks straightforward, it is not. The tort for publication of private facts was created in 1960[16] when newspapers could reach many Americans—but after much delay. In the day of the internet, news can reach millions in a second. The precedent of the First Amendment as related to publications strongly favors the news sources.[17] Even if the information is personal and something the owner does not want released; it is still free game to be published.[18] And since that includes online media[19], that opens the door to personal information being shared with many more people in much less time.

When it comes to legal recourse, this gets even murkier. If the person who released the information can be easily identified, there could be a claim.[20] But if the moment has gone viral, then there are too many people to possibly press charges against.[21] And if the information is untrue, like in the case of the CEO’s purported statement of apology, that was later discovered to be fake,[22] lies can circulate as truth. Further, having information, especially if true, taken down from the internet is virtually impossible. The Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects online intermediaries—such as Yahoo!, Facebook, and Craigslist, with broad immunity for not removing offensive content.[23] So, if harmful information circulates on these websites, they don’t have to take it down and they can’t be sued.[24]

While the internet may eventually forget this incident ever occurred, it is unlikely the people involved will. Even if people forget, this will be on the internet for a very long time, only a quick search away. This leads to the question of whether the “Coldplay Couple” should have access to broader rights to privacy, one that considers the size and timing of the internet, and the possibility of virality. Many would say no, especially those who think they ‘got what they deserved’ from a moral sense. But this perspective forgets the realities of human nature; we all make mistakes. All of us have had moments where we were grateful that no one was recording and putting it online, even if we would like to pretend that we don’t. Would you feel differently about the right to privacy online if it was your dirty laundry aired over the internet?

 

 

 

Link to Image Source: https://images.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/coldplay-at-cpa-3-by-michael-rietmulder.jpg?d=768×576

[1] Miski Omar, The story of the Coldplay couple unfolded like a soap opera. But was the pile-on that followed a proportionate response?, The Guardian (July 21, 2025, 19:07 EDT), https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/22/the-story-of-the-coldplay-couple-unfolded-like-a-soap-opera-but-was-the-pile-on-that-followed-a-proportional-response-ntwnfb.

[2] Id.

[3] Alyssa Goldberg, TikTok of couple caught on camera at Coldplay concert goes viral. The internet is determined to find ‘cheaters.’ Why? USA Today (July 18, 2025, 17:25 EDT), https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2025/07/17/coldplay-concert-couple-viral/85259048007/.

[4] Rory Carroll, Are they ‘having an affair’ or just shy? The couple caught on Coldplay’s kiss cam, The Guardian (July 18, 2025, 6:38 EDT), https://www.theguardian.com/music/2025/jul/18/couple-caught-coldplay-kiss-cam-affair-very-shy.

[5] Miski Omar, The story of the Coldplay couple unfolded like a soap opera. But was the pile-on that followed a proportionate response?, The Guardian (July 21, 2025, 19:07 EDT), https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/22/the-story-of-the-coldplay-couple-unfolded-like-a-soap-opera-but-was-the-pile-on-that-followed-a-proportional-response-ntwnfb.

[6] See id; Larisha Paul, CEO Caught at Coldplay Concert Placed on Leave Awaiting ‘Formal Investigation’, Rolling Stone (July 18, 2025), https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/couple-caught-coldplay-ceo-placed-on-leave-1235389225/; Kalhan Rosenblatt, Company linked to couple on kiss cam at Coldplay concert says it’s investigating, NBS News (July 19, 2025, 12:05 EDT), https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/astronomer-responds-coldplay-concert-kiss-cam-moment-rcna219678; Taijuan Moorman, Coldplay’s Chris Martin reacts as couple on concert screen sparks awkward moment, USA Today, (July 18, 2025, 14:01 EDT), https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/music/2025/07/17/coldplay-concert-video-chris-martin-awkward-couple/85256597007/.

[7] Astronomer HR Chief Kristin Cabot Resigns After Viral ‘Kiss Cam’ Moment at Coldplay Concert, ABC7 (July 24, 2025), https://abc7.com/post/coldplay-kiss-cam-couple-video-astronomer-hr-chief-kristin-cabot-resigns-viral-moment/17280914/.

[8] Luis Prada, The Internet Can’t Stop Laughing at the Cheating Couple From the Coldplay Concert, Vice, (July 18, 2025, 18:08 EDT), https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-internet-cant-stop-laughing-at-the-cheating-couple-from-the-coldplay-concert/.

[9] Mary O’Connor, Coldplay kisscam CEO’s wife shows why she’s America’s most forgiving woman in jaw-dropping new photos, Daily Mail (Sept. 30, 2025, 12:30 EDT), https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15145499/Coldplay-kiss-cam-Astronomer-CEO-andy-byron-megan-marriage-twist.html.

[10] Samual D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890).

[11] Id.

[12] Id. at 196.

[13] William Prosser, Privacy, 48 Cal. L. Rev. 383 (1960).

[14] Emily Laidlaw, Online Shaming and the Right to Privacy, 6 laws 16 (2017).

[15] RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 652D (1977).

[16] William Prosser, Privacy, 48 Cal. L. Rev. 383 (1960).

[17] Jasmine E. McNealy, The Emerging Conflict Between Newsworthiness and The Right To Be Forgotten, 39 N. Ky L. Rev. 119, 129-33 (2012).

[18] See id.

[19] Id.

[20] Emily Laidlaw, Online Shaming and the Right to Privacy, 6 Laws 8 (2017).

[21] Id.

[22] Rory Carroll, Are they ‘having an affair’ or just shy? The couple caught on Coldplay’s kiss cam, The Guardian (July 18, 2025, 6:38 EDT), https://www.theguardian.com/music/2025/jul/18/couple-caught-coldplay-kiss-cam-affair-very-shy.

[23] Natalia Homchick, Reaching Through the “Ghost Doxer:” An Argument for Imposing Secondary Liability on Online Intermediaries, 76 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1307, 1323-27 (2019).

[24] Id.