In Sommer v. Gabor (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1455, one of the defendants, Zsa Zsa Gabor, was quoted in an article published in a German magazine with a circulation of 1.3 million as stating that the plaintiff, actress Elke Sommer, "is broke, had to sell her house in Hollywood, now lives in the worst section, hangs out in sleazy bars, lives from selling her handknit sweaters for $ 150, and nobody wants to have anything to do with her anymore." (Id. at p. 1461.) The other defendant, Frederic Von Anhalt, was quoted in that same article as stating that Sommer " 'was completely ruined' " and " 'hardly had any hair on her head.' " (Ibid.) Von Anhalt also was quoted in a German newspaper with a circulation of 3.9 million as stating that Sommer "could not buy a $ 500 ticket for a charity benefit, Sommer's bills were not being paid, in Hollywood no one recognizes her on the street anymore, Sommer was lying about her age in that she was not 48 but 62, and that Sommer looks like a 100-year-old grandmother." (Id. at p. 1462.) After the publication of the articles, Sommer received about 200 fan letters, some offering to help her. (Sommer, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 1463.) As a result of the articles, Sommer "suffered sleeplessness, headaches, and was sick to her stomach; she saw a psychiatrist twice." (Id. at p. 1462.) Claiming that the defendants' statements about her were false, Sommer sued the defendants for defamation. At the trial, Sommer's publicist testified that Sommer was " 'an actress who has always had a highly sexual identification. She's certainly a glamour star, and one tends to be regarded less glamorously as you get older.' " (Sommer, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 1463.) Sommer's publicist also testified that the articles damaged Sommer's reputation as an actress and were " 'terminal to her career.' " (Id. at p. 1471.) The jury awarded Sommer $ 800,000 in compensatory damages and $ 450,000 in punitive damages against Gabor and $ 1.2 million in compensatory damages and $ 850,000 of punitive damages against Von Anhalt. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the amount of damages awarded was not excessive. (Sommer, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1463-1464.)