Theater Chains Sued for Running Too Many Commercials

Michael*K · 02-20-2003, 12:00 AM

Two lawsuits have been filed in the Chicago area claiming moviegoers are being defrauded by having to sit through up to ten minutes of commercials prior to films. Plaintiffs are asking for damages of up to $75 per patron. Seems kinda frivolous, but I agree the pre-show commercials are getting a little out of hand.

Rob Lutter · 02-20-2003, 12:29 AM

Good. I don't see why people put up with this! I purposely leave home so I arrive 5 mins late and miss all the commercials.

Eric Peterson · 02-20-2003, 08:28 AM

I generally hate silly lawsuits, but I am all for this one. There is almost no place left that you can escape commercials (The Movies & Wrigley Field) and now the movies are being eliminated from that selection list. When I see a commercial in the theater, I automatically put that company on my do not buy list. I absolutely loathe being bombarded by commercials everywhere that I go and have a great fear that the scene in Minority Report may some day come true. If I'm paying for a ticket to see a movie then that is what I should see not two car commericals and a spot for Pepsi. I don't care how original, innovative, or entertaining the commericals are.

Scott Weinberg · 02-20-2003, 08:49 AM

Thought I'd share this press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Class-Action Lawsuit Filed to Protect
Moviegoers from Commercials
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS :: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 ::

A class-action lawsuit was filed today in Chicago against Loews Cineplex Entertainment Group and the approximately 2,445 screens and 263 theatres they own and operate. The lawsuit alleges that Loews Cinemas purposely deceive moviegoers as to the actual starting times for feature films, with the goal of generating a captive audience for advertisements. By publishing misleading starting times in newspapers, on marquees and on their tickets, the movie theaters breach their contracts with moviegoers and engage in a deceptive trade practice. The effect is to waste purchasers' time by forcing them to sit through unwanted commercial messages. Purchasers are effectively forced to watch commercials on their own dime and time.

The lawsuit was filed by two Chicago attorneys: Mark Weinberg, an attorney specializing in consumer fraud and civil rights class-actions; and Douglas Litowitz, presently a visiting professor at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon. The proposed class of plaintiffs includes a nationwide class all recent moviegoers who have been misled by Loews' movie advertising. The named plaintiff in the case is Miriam Fisch, a high school English teacher in a Chicago suburb, who was forced to sit through four commercials prior to the start of watching "The Quiet American." The lawsuit does not challenge the right of movie theatres to show movie previews prior to the start of the show.

The lawsuit alleges that advertising prior to movies is a ploy to get moviegoers into the cinema to serve as unwitting subjects for annoying commercials, many touting products and services from companies tied to the movie theater chains. The lawsuit seeks damages for moviegoers' loss of time and seeks injunctive relief forcing theater owners to accurately list the genuine starting times of movies.

"It is completely ludicrous to have moviegoers pay good money to watch commercials -- they can do that at home for free," said attorney Douglas Litowitz. "Moviegoers are busy people who want to see feature films at the times set forth on their tickets and in newspaper listings; to keep them in a low-level state of confusion so that they can be force fed advertisements is a breach of contract and a deceptive consumer practice. The newspaper listing and the tickets should state the actual times of the commercials, the coming attractions, and the feature film."

According to attorney Mark Weinberg, the lawsuit strikes a blow against "commercial creep": "Our culture is already too commoditized, too commercialized, too branded, and too inundated with demands that we consume more products. The function of art is to elevate us beyond commercialism. There should be at least one place left in culture that provides a temporary reprieve from market research and manipulation."

A copy of the Complaint can be obtained via the web at www.nomovieads.com.

Aaron Cooke · 02-20-2003, 08:57 AM

I hate sitting through the commercials too, and if it's a new release movie, arriving late is no good because most of the shows will be sold out or at the very least i'd get a crap seat. But on the other hand, if the eliminate the commercials (and thus the ad revenue) or worse yet, have to pay a large lawsuit settlement where do you think the theaters are going to make up that money at? Do we really want 12, 15, 20 dollar movie tickets? Movies around here (with student discount) are still only $6.50 and already I tend to wait and just buy the dvd unless it's something that really benefits from being seen on the big screen. I don't know where you draw the line between the two, i guess my point was just that there's some kind of trade off between the ads and ticket prices.

**HTF Ads**

Brent Hutto · 02-20-2003, 09:29 AM

Ticket prices are set by whatever people are willing to pay. The fact that the theater companies can generate additional revenue by selling commercials only affects their profit. If they thought they could sell $20 tickets, that's what the price would be. If no one would go to a movie unless it were $2, that's what the price would be.

An interesting wrinkle would be if they started showing a mixture of $10 movies with no commercials and $5 movies with commercials. But I don't think they currently would perceive any incentive to do that since apparently 10-20 minutes of commercials doesn't cut into their ticket sales.

Another thing to think about. For new major releases, the movie studios get all but a tiny fraction of the ticket price. So if they sell 20 less $10 tickets because 20 people don't want to watch commercials, that's $200 out of the studio's pocket. If the theater only recoups $50 of that by selling commercials, that's $50 pure profit. Of course, the studios will eventually get a cut of the commercials, too.

Dwayne · 02-20-2003, 09:30 AM

I must sympathize with the plaintiffs in this suit. But isn't there a better way to change this than taking this to court? I'm just tired of seeing a lawsuits for everything under the sun. I wonder how much of the money will be going to the lawyers if this case is won?

Again, a part of me wants to see this case won. But another part questions the true motives of those leading the charge.

todd stone · 02-20-2003, 10:12 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Movi...eut/index.html

HOLLYWOOD, California (Variety) -- High school teacher Miriam Fisch wants those four minutes of her life back -- and she thinks Loews Cineplex ought to pay for their alleged theft.

BrettB · 02-20-2003, 10:40 AM

According to attorney Mark Weinberg, the lawsuit strikes a blow against "commercial creep": "Our culture is already too commoditized, too commercialized, too branded, and too inundated with demands that we consume more products.

I wonder how Miriam Fisch came to be aware of attorney Weinberg.

Glenn Overholt · 02-20-2003, 10:55 AM

When this happened in China not too long ago, my only response was to add two words to their showtimes in paper. - after ads - .

Well, I hate them too, but as stated above, you can either show up late or wait for the DVD to come out. If we all waited for the DVD to come, all of the theater's would fold up, but that's another story.

Blenn

MarcVH · 02-20-2003, 11:32 AM

I'm not sure of the merits of this particular suit, but certainly the general concept of subjecting a captive audience to ever-increasing amounts of advertising needs something to put an upper bound on it.

Hmmm... could there also be a class action suit against studios who put forced trailers and other similar time-wasters on DVD menus? That, and a requirement that the DVD menus be ADA compliant, could make things a lot less annoying.