• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Federal judge has ruled that movie studios can be sued under false advertising if they release deceptive movie trailers

Fake

Member



Movie studios can be sued under false advertising laws if they release deceptive movie trailers, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

Two Ana de Armas fans filed a lawsuit in January, alleging that they had rented the movie after seeing de Armas in the trailer, only to discover that she was cut out of the final film.
Universal sought to throw out the lawsuit, arguing that movie trailers are entitled to broad protection under the First Amendment. The studio’s lawyers argued that a trailer is an “artistic, expressive work” that tells a three-minute story conveying the theme of the movie, and should thus be considered “non-commercial” speech.

But Wilson rejected that argument, finding that a trailer is commercial speech and is subject to the California False Adverting Law and the state’s Unfair Competition Law.
Universal is correct that trailers involve some creativity and editorial discretion, but this creativity does not outweigh the commercial nature of a trailer,” Wilson wrote. “At its core, a trailer is an advertisement designed to sell a movie by providing consumers with a preview of the movie.”

 
Last edited:

dr_octagon

Banned
Infinity War? It was 2 and a half hours.
I know who to call.
Season 5 Episode 20 GIF by The Simpsons
 

Doom85

Member
That seems like it could be potentially misused. All the modern Planet of the Apes trilogy trailers used manipulative editing to not spoil the actual plots of the films (Rise trailer made it look like apes were taking over, they were actually just escaping captivity; Dawn made it look like Caesar was reluctantly starting the battle, it was actually Koba; and War made it look like the focus was a war between Caesar and Woody Harrelson’s character, it was actually a prison escape story). I thought it was great, and I’d be pissed if a marketing team going up and beyond to avoid spoilers got sued for that.

Honestly, I just can’t with people who see a film SOLELY because an actor/actress is in it. Like, sure they can be a pro, but ultimately the film being good or bad in a person‘s eye should be what matters, not who was in the film.

Plus, what if a trailer was released, and decisions later had to be made to edit the scenes with a character who had a small role out? Seriously, this is a stupid idea.
 
Last edited:

Fake

Member
Plus, what if a trailer was released, and decisions later had to be made to edit the scenes with a character who had a small role out? Seriously, this is a stupid idea.

They just need to edit the trailer and remove the person in question, with was not the case of the Ana de Armas. She was removed from the movie, but still being AD 'because'.

They mostly don't do it because can affect initial sales and tickets pre-orders.
 
Last edited:

ssringo

Member
Hoeg Law covered this several days ago. TLDW: This ain't what you think it is. You can sue anyone for anything. Doesn't mean you'll win. All that happened with this is a judge said MAYBE you have a claim and the suit can move forward. That's it.

 

anthony2690

Banned


What about releasing the first 7 incredible minutes of the mortal Kombat movie?!

It was literally a bait and switch, the movie turns into something else completely that never comes close to the first 7 minutes sadly.

I hope the second film is better.

Edit: read the article, wonder why ana de armes was cut from the movie? (Despite being in the trailer)
 
Last edited:

kanjobazooie

Mouse Ball Fetishist
Can I sue fans for false advertising? They overhyped Interstellar like it was sculpted by Auguste Rodin, but watching it felt like inserting a spiky suppository into my butthole. What a painfully boring movie.


Yes, I have a low IQ. Why are you asking?
 
Last edited:

Ionian

Member
Can I sue fans for false advertising? They overhyped Interstellar like it was sculpted by Auguste Rodin, but watching it felt like inserting a spiky suppository into my butthole. What a painfully boring movie.


Yes, I have a low IQ. Why are you asking?

I actually avoided that after a family member had the same opinion. Person who watched it said it was monumentally boring.

You only compounded that though, if I want torture I'll watch something based on Clive Barker (for intentional) torture. Or the first Avatar. The second ... no thanks!

Think 'Covenant' was the last film I saw in the cinema but sure that's a trope in itself, by now LMAO.

Cheers, Ridley!
 

ANDS

King of Gaslighting
That seems like it could be potentially misused. All the modern Planet of the Apes trilogy trailers used manipulative editing to not spoil the actual plots of the films (Rise trailer made it look like apes were taking over, they were actually just escaping captivity; Dawn made it look like Caesar was reluctantly starting the battle, it was actually Koba; and War made it look like the focus was a war between Caesar and Woody Harrelson’s character, it was actually a prison escape story). I thought it was great, and I’d be pissed if a marketing team going up and beyond to avoid spoilers got sued for that.

Honestly, I just can’t with people who see a film SOLELY because an actor/actress is in it. Like, sure they can be a pro, but ultimately the film being good or bad in a person‘s eye should be what matters, not who was in the film.

Plus, what if a trailer was released, and decisions later had to be made to edit the scenes with a character who had a small role out? Seriously, this is a stupid idea.

Masking a plot by using scenes cut out of order that are actually in the game, is NOT the same as using shots that never were in a movie and never were intended to be (to cover the "Oh we cut that in editing" eventual comments). The trailer posted above for Infinity War is a great example of this and I totally forgot that scene from the trailer (it is obvious why this shot was made given the ending of the first movie but it is still deceptive).

. . .also give me a break with the bolded. They can reshoot/reedit a movie, but they can't re-upload a trailer that is reflective of the actual product? Ok. Sure.

Sweating over a dumbass idea that virtually any judge would laugh at in court?

. . .a judge has already determined that the case has merit and is allowing it to continue development (as a class action lawsuit). I look forward to more of these hard hitting legal takes.
 

Doom85

Member
Masking a plot by using scenes cut out of order that are actually in the game, is NOT the same as using shots that never were in a movie and never were intended to be (to cover the "Oh we cut that in editing" eventual comments). The trailer posted above for Infinity War is a great example of this and I totally forgot that scene from the trailer (it is obvious why this shot was made given the ending of the first movie but it is still deceptive).

. . .also give me a break with the bolded. They can reshoot/reedit a movie, but they can't re-upload a trailer that is reflective of the actual product? Ok. Sure.



. . .a judge has already determined that the case has merit and is allowing it to continue development (as a class action lawsuit). I look forward to more of these hard hitting legal takes.

But a lawsuit is overkill for obvious reasons. You could just ask the theater for a refund. I would totally empathize with the theater employee thinking you need to fuck off and just accept that sometimes you see a film you don’t like, but it’s at least FAR more reasonable than taking it to court. You lost, what, at most $20 over a ticket (and that’s if it was IMAX)? Cry me a fucking river. Anyone taking this to court is making a KAREN look sane in comparison. At least they keep their bullshit in the store, you’d be wasting the time of a bunch of people over this nonsense.

Also, oh wait, they didn’t even see it in theaters, they rented it. WOW. So ten seconds of research online could have “spared them the trauma” of seeing the film that DARED to not have an actress in it. Oh, and this shit has been available since 2019 (see below). But hey, clearly this warrants going to court when (checks Amazon rent price) they lost a whopping FOUR DOLLARS. DEAR GOD. On a totally unrelated note, remember that episode of It‘s Always Sunny where the McPoyles are suing over $200 in a superior court and the judge is baffled when he reads the amount? Yeah, and this case is $4. *cough*


And spare me the “well, they could have removed the trailer”. You know people this fucking entitled would have played the angle they never saw the new version. Plus, is Universal supposed to find a way to remove articles regarding the cast from every website out there?

Hell, what if a release date gets changed after a trailer is released? “I spent a dollar on gas driving to the theater and the film isn’t even out yet! Universal tricked me, I’m taking this to court!”

Anyone who supports this level of entitlement sounds EXTREMELY stupid. Didn’t realize Gaf had a few Omega-level Karens lurking in it. Yikes.

Here’s an idea: if your only interest in a film is based ENTIRELY on a single actor/actress, maybe double check to make sure they’re in the film? Universal is not responsible for anyone being a dumb motherfucker.

Also, wow, a single dipshit judge thinks this has merit. Wow, you really owned me there, we all know every single judge has always made the right call throughout history. Like that judge a few years ago who gave a rapist only six months because “we don’t want to ruin his life over one bad decision”. Hey, based on your “logic” and “clear expertise in law”, I guess rapists should get a slap on the wrist. I wouldn’t have thought that, but you truly enlightened me!

Staring Ed Helms GIF by The Office


Also, learn what the word “virtually“ means. You pointing out ONE judge supports it doesn’t contradict what I said at all.

Like, morons try to sue people over the most dumbass of reasons all the time. My entire college class laughed their asses off when our professor recounted hearing about a guy trying to sue a sunshield manufacturer after he crashed his car while having it over his windshield and the dude’s argument was, “well, the sunshield didn’t say on it anywhere to remove it while driving!” If your idea of a good time is speaking up for these morons, be my fucking guest.

50 cent laughing GIF
 

Fbh

Member


Jail whoever made this misleading trailer


Where do I sign for the class action lawsuit? Lol

Like the guy of Skill Up said, I really hope that would include games as well.

DOESN'T THIS LOOK COOL???? PRE ORDER NOW!!!*
*Trailer is based on a work in progress an isn't representative of the final product**
** Hey, when we said "not representative of the final product" we didn't specify it couldn't mean that it will actually get worse compared to what we showed
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Sounds good to me.

Companies should be held accountable for shady advertising. Advertise what the consumer gets, no BS.

It'd be like a car company showing an ad you get AWD included. But when you get the car it's not there. Oops.... sorry bud, we decided not to include it but the TV ad was too late to adjust.
 
Last edited:

ANDS

King of Gaslighting
But a lawsuit is overkill for obvious reasons. You could just ask the theater for a refund. I would totally empathize with the theater employee thinking you need to fuck off and just accept that sometimes you see a film you don’t like, but it’s at least FAR more reasonable than taking it to court. You lost, what, at most $20 over a ticket (and that’s if it was IMAX)? Cry me a fucking river. Anyone taking this to court is making a KAREN look sane in comparison. At least they keep their bullshit in the store, you’d be wasting the time of a bunch of people over this nonsense.

So you're just against class actions in general? Because this is how most of them work and are usually started because someone lost a couple bucks in a transaction. . .but then realized that times however many is a lot of change.

Also, wow, a single dipshit judge thinks this has merit. Wow, you really owned me there, we all know every single judge has always made the right call throughout history. Like that judge a few years ago who gave a rapist only six months because “we don’t want to ruin his life over one bad decision”. Hey, based on your “logic” and “clear expertise in law”, I guess rapists should get a slap on the wrist. I wouldn’t have thought that, but you truly enlightened me!



Also, learn what the word “virtually“ means. You pointing out ONE judge supports it doesn’t contradict what I said at all.

Your original comment - that was clearly based on your "gut feeling" without you doing the "simple research" you suggest that these "Karens" from the story should have done - suggested no legal authority would view this as having any merit. It literally does, according to the one judge whose opinion on whether this class is certified or not is going to be used. I don't know what your bullshit "Oh my goodness, what about that rape judge!" comment is for other than to deflect from you overstating the defense of your original (and fairly defensible) point. And no, you're "virtually" clarifier isn't appropriate given that class actions like this happen all the time over small transactions (I get these emails all the time), which means judges aren't laughing these out of their courtrooms.

. . .still, real glad you're dedicated to keeping us abreast of your version of the legal system.
 

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
Great, all this is going to result in is a disclaimer saying "final product may vary".

Because with games, its unavoidable.
 
Last edited:

NeonGhost

uses 'M$' - What year is it? Not 2002.
Great, all this is going to result in is a disclaimer saying "final product may vary".

Because with games, its unavoidable.
Came to say the same thing movie trailers will just but some message like this and do the same thing they’re doing now
 

Doom85

Member
So you're just against class actions in general? Because this is how most of them work and are usually started because someone lost a couple bucks in a transaction. . .but then realized that times however many is a lot of change.



Your original comment - that was clearly based on your "gut feeling" without you doing the "simple research" you suggest that these "Karens" from the story should have done - suggested no legal authority would view this as having any merit. It literally does, according to the one judge whose opinion on whether this class is certified or not is going to be used. I don't know what your bullshit "Oh my goodness, what about that rape judge!" comment is for other than to deflect from you overstating the defense of your original (and fairly defensible) point. And no, you're "virtually" clarifier isn't appropriate given that class actions like this happen all the time over small transactions (I get these emails all the time), which means judges aren't laughing these out of their courtrooms.

. . .still, real glad you're dedicated to keeping us abreast of your version of the legal system.

And how many more people would just ask Amazon for a refund? Especially with how shaky an argument that “oh, an actress isn’t in the film and I felt misled despite that information of her not being in the film being made public for three years!”

Should Jif Peanut Butter be sued for making someone sick AFTER they released a recall statement in 2022 but the dumbass who bought it anyway goes, “hey, I saw a commercial on YouTube that was posted by Jif in 2017 telling me to eat Jif! I was misled and deserve compensation for being misled!”

And I love how through all your blabbering, you never say for yourself why this case has any merit. Of course you don’t, though I expect your next post will but only by focusing on the few points that can barely be argued, just like any lawyer when they’re having to represent a dumbass.

It‘s to point how ONE judge‘s way of thinking is not some “no one is allowed to be dismissive of this” disclaimer. Geezus, how much do I have to spell out for you?

Also, way to deflect that you ignored the “virtually” aspect. My statement was objectively correct yet you can’t even admit it, and just pursue a tangent. Classy.

Yeah, not talking to you anymore. I mean, you clearly know a lot about being a lawyer in that you tried to ignore all the points you couldn’t argue against, and instead focused on tangents and such to deflect against me. So, way to be basic, I guess.
 

ANDS

King of Gaslighting
And how many more people would just ask Amazon for a refund? Especially with how shaky an argument that “oh, an actress isn’t in the film and I felt misled despite that information of her not being in the film being made public for three years!”

So you've never received a Class Action letter? It would be ANYONE who was affected by this, so yes - anyone who has seen the movie.

Should Jif Peanut Butter be sued for making someone sick AFTER they released a recall statement in 2022 but the dumbass who bought it anyway goes, “hey, I saw a commercial on YouTube that was posted by Jif in 2017 telling me to eat Jif! I was misled and deserve compensation for being misled!”

If the product was still out and being sold, someone should be sued for negligence and it almost surely would be the store selling the product. Not sure what this example is meant to demonstrate one way or another, unless you are making the WILDLY ludicrous argument that it is the consumers job to make sure an advertised product performs as intended and not the producer's.

And I love how through all your blabbering

No, I was pretty clear in what I wrote. If you're viewing it as "blabbering" you're doing so dishonestly and in place of a argument you actually have confidence in.

- you never say for yourself why this case has any merit. Of course you don’t, though I expect your next post will but only by focusing on the few points that can barely be argued, just like any lawyer when they’re having to represent a dumbass.

Why does what I think about the lawsuit have to do with you being wrong? But sure: if a company is knowingly engaging in deceptive advertising practices to sell a product, they should be held liable for that. This includes a movie studio advertising their movie stars one of Hollywood's current "It Girls" in Ana De Armas. Pretty uncontroversial stuff.

It‘s to point how ONE judge‘s way of thinking is not some “no one is allowed to be dismissive of this” disclaimer. Geezus, how much do I have to spell out for you?

Also, way to deflect that you ignored the “virtually” aspect. My statement was objectively correct yet you can’t even admit it, and just pursue a tangent. Classy.

Yeah, not talking to you anymore. I mean, you clearly know a lot about being a lawyer in that you tried to ignore all the points you couldn’t argue against, and instead focused on tangents and such to deflect against me. So, way to be basic, I guess.

You literally said "virtually all" judges would laugh this case out of their courtroom. I followed up first by pointing out that in this case a judge has already declined to toss out this cases attempt at class action certification and followed that up by pointing out your dismissiveness of this case (that seems entirely rooted in the monetary loss of - currently - two individuals) ignores the entire history of class action lawsuits (often small monetary losses of - initially - a small number of people). So no, your statement isn't objectively correct in any way shape or form - either currently, or historically.

. . .all this other piffle you're tossing out (rape judges and peanut butter, barely contained rage at an impotent argument of your own design, tangents) is just noise.
 

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
Came to say the same thing movie trailers will just but some message like this and do the same thing they’re doing now

What bugs me the most is the way its portrayed as some sort of "victory for consumers", when in reality its just going to end up being disclaimered away at best.

Nothing's going to change because nothing CAN change.

Creative people are going to want to promote their work before its 100% nailed down in the final edit or build. Forcing them to wait would be economically ruinous and frankly unfair given the production time-scales involved and the need to sync-up with promotional and marketing media. What's the alternative, not being able to make positive changes and improvements late in the cycle because an early version has already been shown? Or issue press releases everytime the director changes his or her mind about a particular thing!

And what's the "win" here? Truth in advertising? I'm amazed anyone can keep a straight-face! :D

The whole point of the exercise is to drum up sales by creating as favourable an impression as possible with whatever product is at hand. Truth doesn't enter the frickin' equation, its the thing that marketers dance around!
 
Ew... that's a glorious can of worms opened there. So, will they go for the swift settlement route to avoid a potentially disasterous legal decision at trial, or will that deem that risk worth it to take it to trial and shut this one down before everyone and their brother starts to open quick lawsuits for easy settlement money. Hmm, this will be interesting.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
What bugs me the most is the way its portrayed as some sort of "victory for consumers", when in reality its just going to end up being disclaimered away at best.

Nothing's going to change because nothing CAN change.

Creative people are going to want to promote their work before its 100% nailed down in the final edit or build. Forcing them to wait would be economically ruinous and frankly unfair given the production time-scales involved and the need to sync-up with promotional and marketing media. What's the alternative, not being able to make positive changes and improvements late in the cycle because an early version has already been shown? Or issue press releases everytime the director changes his or her mind about a particular thing!

And what's the "win" here? Truth in advertising? I'm amazed anyone can keep a straight-face! :D

The whole point of the exercise is to drum up sales by creating as favourable an impression as possible with whatever product is at hand. Truth doesn't enter the frickin' equation, its the thing that marketers dance around!
According to google, her role in the film was basically non-existent. She was in one scene, yet was in the trailer for 15 seconds. So her actual role was even less than a supporting cast member. That kind of role, she'd be listed probably 12th in the credits.

Yet they promoted her anyway in a trailer.

To get around that, just show trailers with the main cast, who none will be cut in final editing.

It's totally misleading to promote media with certain cast member when the real movie has either zero (this movie) or hardly any. I remember those Matrix movies where they kept promoting those Albino twins like they are major villains. They were barely in it. But at least for the movie, they were still shown. Not deleted.

If a store promotes they sell jeans like it's a decent part of their clothes and you check out their brick and mortar store or online and they sell zero jeans or only 1 pair of jeans, that sounds pretty misleading to me.

Whether that's a legal issue or not, who knows. But to me pretty scummy way of marketing.
 
Last edited:

RaduN

Member
I think in the case of MGS2, the scenes showed in the trailer, with Solid Snake instead of Raiden, could be played with Solid Snake, in a what if scenario.

But i don't remember exactly if the trailer with the Solid scenes were for Sons of liberty (which, i think didn't have those added missions) or Substance.
 
Top Bottom