Judge OKs $5 Million Suit Over $3.99 Movie Trailer Fraud

WASHINGTON - Dec. 26, 2022 - PRLog -- Judge OKs $5 Million Suit Over $3.99 Movie Trailer Fraud
Could Trailers for Motion Pictures Become The Next Tobacco?

WASHINGTON, D, C. (December 26, 2022) -  A judge has upheld the validity of a lawsuit seeking $5 million in damages because plaintiffs were duped into renting a film for $3.99 by an allegedly misleading trailer, after holding that the trailer itself - unlike the movie - was not protected by the First Amendment, notes public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

Although the door for such legal actions is opened just a bit with this ruling, it could mean that eventually movie trailers could become the next tobacco in terms of lucrative lawsuits, says Banzhaf, who has been called "The Law Professor Who Masterminded Litigation Against the Tobacco Industry," a "King of Class Action Law Suits," and "a Driving Force Behind the Lawsuits That Have Cost Tobacco Companies Billions of Dollars."

Two fans of Ana De Armas sued Universal because the trailer for the firm "Yesterday," which included brief scenes which showed the actress, had been cut so she not longer appeared at all in the movie which each plaintiff had rented from Amazon for $3.99.

The judge permitted the class action lawsuit for $5 million to proceed, ruling that, because the trailer was in the nature of an advertisement, it did not have the First Amendment protection which the movie itself would certainly enjoy.  As judge Stephen Wilson wrote in his potentially very significant ruling:

"Universal is correct that trailers involve some creativity and editorial discretion, but this creativity does not outweigh the commercial nature of a trailer. At its core, a trailer is an advertisement designed to sell a movie by providing consumers with a preview of the movie."

Therefore, he rules, the were classified as "commercial speech," making them subject to California's tough and sweeping "False Advertising (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayTex...)" and "Unfair Competition (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayTex...)" laws.

This ruling - that the trailer for a movie can be subject to the same false advertising and unfair competition claims as any other product - could have widespread implications, suggest Banzhaf.

Although here the misrepresentation is clear and not at all subjective - i.e.,  the trailer did in fact depict an actress who did not in fact appear in the movie - the ruling opens the door to broader and less objective claims that a movie trailer was deceptive because it unfairly misrepresented the movie itself.

In fact, exactly such a lawsuit was filed back in 2011, and was still being litigated in 2017.

http://banzhaf.net/ (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__banzhaf.net_&d=DwMDaQ&c=cnx1hdOQtepEQkpermZGwQ&r=fEyM2WI-TCmYRHeECRlcV7vbkp2I1ve2sVutRnME8jg&m=FuE5rtthD2qxldy1d3w0PkVRubkonfIG-CH_F3y11ys&s=pcudqIDAcUR1TqdUehVp4RKfpXAuEHHONwX6biO3_ks&e) jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com  @profbanzhaf