Movie studios can be sued for deceptive trailers (1 Viewer)

[Alex...]

Ana de Armas Fans’ Lawsuit Puts Studios at Risk Over Deceptive Trailers

Movie studios can be sued under false advertising laws if they release deceptive movie trailers, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson issued a ruling in a case invol…

variety.com

 

[Joe Wong]

Oh no! How will Marvel Studios put red herrings in their trailers (among the most viewed and analysed) now?

 

[JohnRice]

There’s already a thread about this.

 

[Jeffrey D]

SMH. That’s all I got.

 

[David_B_K]

No way this should suit be allowed to go forward. Even if they sue, the degree of "damage" they "suffered" is so small as to only be classified as an annoyance.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

There’s already a thread about this.

But it's part of the "Yesterday" thread. This one has a different focus.

 

[Wayne_j]

No way this should suit be allowed to go forward. Even if they sue, the degree of "damage" they "suffered" is so small as to only be classified as an annoyance.

Not to mention that the deleted scenes are available on youtube.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

No clue why a federal judge would rule in favor of more frivolous lawsuits. Ridiculous.

 

[DaveF]

There’s already a thread about this.

Where?

 

[JohnRice]

Where?

Forget it.

This story is the result of a law suit regarding the movie Yesterday, which there is already a thread discussing. It's just an evolution of the same thing, so it'll end up being a parallel discussion about the same topic.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Where?

We've been discussing it in the thread for Yesterday. I brought it up there because it is he movie with the allegedly deceptive trailer that brought on the lawsuit. (I say allegedly because I don't think the trailer is actually deceptive.)

 

[Edwin-S]

False advertising is false advertising. Trailers are commercials and they shouldn't be allowed to be deceptive any more than any other commercial.

 

[Joe Wong]

Some trailers intentionally show stuff that’s not in the final cut, and vice versa. Select Marvel films (eg. Spider-man: No Way Home) have been doing that more recently due to the high spoiler potential. There is an intent here to misdirect, if not deceive.

Other trailers (eg. teasers) may show stuff that is not in the final cut simply because the trailer is released many months before the film is finished, and then there might be a decision made later that changes what was shown in the trailer. An artistic decision that’s not trying to deceive.

Because of the 2nd situation, I can’t imagine the law opening this up to lawsuits. Otherwise every trailer may need a disclaimer just in case?

 

[Edwin-S]

Some trailers intentionally show stuff that’s not in the final cut, and vice versa. Select Marvel films (eg. Spider-man: No Way Home) have been doing that more recently due to the high spoiler potential. There is an intent here to misdirect, if not deceive.

Other trailers (eg. teasers) may show stuff that is not in the final cut simply because the trailer is released many months before the film is finished, and then there might be a decision made later that changes what was shown in the trailer. An artistic decision that’s not trying to deceive.

Because of the 2nd situation, I can’t imagine the law opening this up to lawsuits. Otherwise every trailer may need a disclaimer just in case?

Game trailers contain disclaimers, so I do not see why film trailers should be exempt. It is as simple as "may not be indicative of final content" to cover their asses.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

That it didn’t get thrown out of court yet doesn’t mean it will prevail. The plaintiffs have a very high bar to climb. There are centuries if not millennia of precedence that advertising for storytelling uses exaggeration and omission to entice an audience without revealing the true ending of the work.

I cannot imagine a scenario where the court says “You have to tell people in advance that Janet Leigh dies at the beginning of Psycho and if you don’t, you’ve committed a crime.”

I believe the most likely outcome is that this will be dismissed during the trail phase. The plaintiffs will make their case and the defense will make a motion stating that the plaintiffs haven’t proved damage or harm, and it’ll probably end there. I doubt it even goes to a jury. If it does and by some unlikely miracle a jury agrees with the plaintiffs, it will be appealed, and an appellate judge will toss it out. There is no way the plaintiffs prevail in the end. Typically when one files a frivolous lawsuit and loses, they are ordered to pay court costs for all parties. Once plaintiffs are hit with those, that will almost certainly serve to discourage anyone from trying such a stunt again.

I believe my alternate universe counterpart @Josh Dial is a lawyer - very curious to hear his take on this. I could be totally wrong as I am not a lawyer but I think I’m on the right path here.

 

[jayembee]

One thing about trailers is that sometimes they'll use what amounts to "placeholder" music that doesn't appear in the actual film. Orff's Carmina Burana is one example. Would that count as "deceptive"?

 

[Edwin-S]

I cannot imagine a scenario where the court says “You have to tell people in advance that Janet Leigh dies at the beginning of Psycho and if you don’t, you’ve committed a crime.”

That is an exaggerated example, since trailers can be cut to not reveal major plot points or endings. Their argument is that the trailer was deceptive because it suggested the appearance of an actor that subsequently was never in the film. Maybe they shouldn't be showing trailers until it gas been finalized that the players are actually going to be on-screen. Adding a disclaimer gets rid of the problem, even if an actor that doesn't show up in the final cut gets used in a trailer.

However, I agree that the whole thing may be moot as it may never get past the trial phase. I disagree that it is frivolous as the judge that made the initial ruling could have dismissed it immediately if it had no merit. Obviously, he thinks it did have merit.

One way or another, testing it in court will settle the matter once and for all, so it is in no way frivolous just because some people don't agree with the argument.

Everyone always brings up the McDonald coffee lady as a frivolous case, except it wasn't. When the case is brought up to actual lawyers, none of them state that it was a frivolous or vexatious case.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The coffee case wasn’t frivolous because there was an existing standard for how hot “hot coffee” was allowed to be served at and the coffee in question far exceeded that.

There is no standard that says a filmmaker may not cut a scene from a film still in post production after that scene has been used in advertising.

 

[jayembee]

False advertising is false advertising. Trailers are commercials and they shouldn't be allowed to be deceptive any more than any other commercial.

It would depend on how the law defines "deceptive". I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that the only liability on the part of the studio making the film/trailer is whether there was malicious intent to deceive. If a trailer is released months before the final cut of the film it advertises, and includes actors or scenes that weren't -- at the time -- intended to be left out of the final cut, I think it would be a high bar to prove that the studio intended to cheat the plaintiff. It's not analogous to scammers.

I can see someone being disappointed that an actor they like ends up not being in the film, but as others have noted, does this rise to the level of being harmed? And what should the damages amount to? Anything more than the price of a ticket would be egregious. That these two guys are "seeking at least $5 million as representatives of a class of movie customers" is insane. I doubt they're planning to share that money with other "victims".

 

[JimmyO]

At the end of the day, adults need to take some responsibility for themselves.

It should be reasonably well known that when a trailer is released, the film may not have been finalized. It is in the viewers own personal interest that the film final cut should be a satisfying film to watch. This may mean that certain scenes need to be dropped.

This does not belong in a court of law.