When may a private figure recover for defamation if there is no matter of public concern?

Hypo 1: Bob falsely tells several neighbors that Sam cheats on his wife Amy. Word spreads around the neighborhood, people start shunning Sam, and Amy leaves him over the rumors. Sam sues Bob for defamation. In court, Sam provides witnesses stating Bob made the accusation, and shows he's always been faithful to Amy. Result: Sam doesn't have to prove Bob knew the cheating claim was false or recklessly disregarded the truth of it. As a private figure, on a matter not of public concern, Sam only had to show Bob's statement was false. Sam can recover presumed damages for the unquantifiable harm to his reputation and marriage, even though he can't prove specific financial losses. The jury could also award punitive damages to punish Bob for damaging Sam's good name with a falsehood.

Hypo 2: Bob writes a post on a neighborhood Facebook group claiming Sam is a convicted child molester. Terrified parents spread the rumor and ostracize Sam. Sam loses his job because of the claim. Sam sues Bob for defamation and shows he's never been arrested, let alone convicted of a crime. Result: Whether Bob made up the child molester claim or simply had Sam confused with someone else, it doesn't matter. As a private figure, on a matter not of public concern, Sam doesn't have to prove actual malice. He just has to demonstrate the statement was false, which his clean criminal record does. Sam can not only recover for actual damages like lost wages, but presumed damages for the devastating impact on his reputation, and potential punitive damages.

Hypo 3: Sam confides in his friend Bob about some embarrassing gastrointestinal issues he's been having. Bob proceeds to tell several coworkers that Sam routinely soils himself. Humiliated, Sam sues Bob for defamation. Result: Gastrointestinal problems of a private individual are not likely to be considered a matter of public concern. As such, Sam could recover damages upon simply showing the statements were false, without needing to demonstrate actual malice by Bob.

Hypo 4: Bob writes a post on an online neighborhood forum claiming that Sam, a private individual, faked his college degree. Outraged neighbors spread this rumor, costing Sam his job. However, it later comes out that Bob's claim was true - Sam does not have the degree he claims and lied on his resume. Result: Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Since Bob's statement about Sam's deception was accurate, Sam cannot recover for defamation no matter how much the revelation harmed him. The fact that Sam is a private figure and his education is not a matter of public concern does not matter if the damaging statement is true.

Hypo 5: Bob, a well-known billionaire and public figure, is accused by a newspaper of cheating on his taxes, based on an anonymous source. Bob strongly denies the claim. He sues the paper's owner Sam for defamation and proves the allegation of tax evasion is false. Result: As a public figure, Bob would need to meet the actual malice standard to recover for defamation, even on a matter arguably not of public concern like his private taxes. Bob would have to show Sam either knew the claim was false or recklessly disregarded indications it was untrue before publishing, a high bar Bob likely could not meet if Sam relied on a source he believed credible. As a private person, Bob could have recovered by simply proving the statement's falsity. But his status as a public figure means he must demonstrate actual malice, not just prove the claim was untrue.