Movie studios can be sued under false advertising laws if they release deceptive movie trailers

I’m curious to know what a jury would find to be the “damages” owed for a suit like this?

- A $20 movie ticket for “special damages”?
- What “general damages” would be owed for the 90 minutes spent in the movie theater? What would possibly be owed for “broken dreams and no ice creams…?
- What “punitive damages” would there be to, essentially, punish the studio??

At least in the famous “it turns out that coffee is hot” lawsuit that McDonald lost, the plaintiff did suffer serious burns to her legs. But in this case, just what are the “damages”, beyond a movie ticket and the time spent in the theater?
 
Last edited:
Damages brings up another issue. Other filmmakers with better product getting passed over for the ads of the big production that is raspberry worthy. How many times has a second feature been better than the main feature? If you have been around long enough, you have seen it. Maybe you have even laughed about it.

How many amazing films have been overlooked because big budget advertising sold a film that was, shall we say unpolished?

If we take up the question of damages, that opens up and entire new can of worms.
 
I’m curious to know what a jury would find to be the “damages” owed for a suit like this?

- A $20 movie ticket for “special damages”?

- What “punitive damages” would possibly be owed for “broken dreams and no ice creams…?

At least in the famous “it turns out that coffee is hot” lawsuit that McDonald lost, the plaintiff did suffer serious burns to her legs. But in this case, just what are the “damages”, beyond a movie ticket and the time spent in the theater?
This wasn't even that. Two guys rented a DVD. Not sure if that was together or each rented their own. So, their damages are 5-10 bucks.

Furthermore, where does it end? She makes the trailer, so she's in 15% of the trailer, does she have to be in 15% of the movie? If she was in it for 5 seconds, does it still count?
 
Frankly, any studio that advertises the beautiful Ana deArmas in the trailer only to exclude her completely from the Final Cut deserves to be punished. Joking aside, if the plaintiffs were to win, it would be for way less than $5M, and personally I believe it should be for $3.99. However, note that a plaintiff victory could set precedent for a class action.

Also note that, regardless of whether the plaintiffs win, the Judge would set narrow parameters on what constitutes “deceptive marketing” in order to avoid frivolous lawsuits in the future. So there will be a positive result regardless of the outcome. Also, if plaintiffs’ case really sucks, the studios can raise a motion to dismiss at any point, or the judge can make that decision unilaterally.

Also, I don’t support the plaintiffs, but we don’t have all the facts. Many still believe that the old lady who “won” $5M against McDonald’s for a coffee spill was a frivolous suit. However, that was the media spin originating from McD’s. Based on the facts that emerged during and after the trial, you probably would not believe the case was frivolous.
 
Last edited:
This wasn't even that. Two guys rented a DVD. Not sure if that was together or each rented their own. So, their damages are 5-10 bucks.

Furthermore, where does it end? She makes the trailer, so she's in 15% of the trailer, does she have to be in 15% of the movie? If she was in it for 5 seconds, does it still count?
In this type of situation, damages would be to place the plaintiffs back in the situation they would have been in if they hadn’t rented the movie. So the entire rental amount, and not some percentage.
 
In this type of situation, damages would be to place the plaintiffs back in the situation they would have been in if they hadn’t rented the movie. So the entire rental amount, and not some percentage.
My percentage stuff was what's the bar for being able to sue, nothing to do with damages.

As I flatly stated, their damages are a whopping 5-10 bucks. I suppose if they sat through the 2 hours, you could add 2 hours of their time. That's it. I also mentioned before i'd saddle them with at least half the costs in the event they won as well so they'd end up a net negative for wasting everyone's time over this.
 

“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.”

This opens up a whole can of worms, especially for teaser type trailers

For example the Rogue One trailer I remember scene with Jyn facing down a Tie Fighter and watching for that, but it never made it into the movie

Same with some scenes from The Force Awakens trailer

Countless other movies also where there are shots specifically created for the trailers
1. the Tie Fighter looked Awesome..
2. WE WERE ROBBED!
 
It's a slippery slope if you start measuring/timing trailer's appearances (2 minutes for that actor in the trailer vs 2 seconds in the final cut:rolleyes:)
Next on my list is the car commercials on T.V.: always driving on empty roads, never stuck in traffic, always at a fast clip:devil:
 
Next on my list is the car commercials on T.V.: always driving on empty roads, never stuck in traffic, always at a fast clip:devil:
Gets covered in the "Professional driver on closed course. Do not attempt" disclaimer.

I suspect Hollywood will do similar and add an "Editing not final" disclaimer to the MPAA card they run before the trailer.

As an aside, those disclaimers do exist for a reason. I still get a dusting every time I turn on the AC. But damn was it fun! :lol:
fQNcjbs.jpg
 
Oh i absolutely believe they did it because they found a loophole and think they can cash in.

You'd think the threshold for damages would be what it cost you. It cost them 5 bucks. I don't equate it with damage. We're not talking McDonald's coffee giving someone 3rd degree burns which some think should be 100% on the customer. We're talking a 5 dollar rental with no tangible level of damage here. Get a life guys.

I said very early on, I think this results in studios just adding a disclaimer to trailers in tiny text. They it with drug ads and car ads, etc. Fine print on a trailer isn't going hurt anything or cost anyone anything in the end. So, big deal.

If i was the judge i'd be tempted to find for them and award them 5 dollars in damages and say they have to pay (or even split) court costs so they come out in the hole in the end as do their lawyers.

I know the final product is an ever changing thing up til the last minute these days with digital distribution. You don't have to have the thing complete til the day before release really.

As I said, if they market in good intentions and something gets cut, i have no problem with it. They tell me a certain person will be in it when they already know they've been cut, then that crosses the line. For this case, to me, it hinges on whether or not the trailer was used once they knew she wasn't in the movie. If so, i think they have a problem. If not, these guys can go screw themselves.

In the end, they weren't selling a love triangle in any trailer I saw, it was all 'one day everyone forgot the beatles but this guy'. That was it. Now, if the flick came out and it was about something completely different, OK, let's talk. But the trailer, to me, sold what the movie was about which is the point and not something all trailers actually do these days. Personally, i think these guys are opportunist losers looking for a pay day. That make it clear?

I'm just saying, legally, if the studio marketed it selling a person who they knew wasn't in it, then legally, i think they have a problem. I also thing these guys would have to prove they knew they were trying to mislead people. If the studio can show she was cut after the trailer came out, i think they're fine. However, I'd like to think a studio isn't dumb enough to actually put that kind of admission in email or paper but, you can never under estimate the stupidity of people.

What I think legally and personally - two different things.
I don't know how it is for the rest of the country, but in CA and LA County specifically, the outcome of a lawsuit is actually determined by a jury. They'll basically be asked which side to effectively rule in favor of and how much to reward in damages and they'll be given guidelines on how to determine the amount of damages. Depending on how much they're (the plaintiff) asking for and the mood of the jury they might get only their rental fee back or they might get more, damages are very flexible and entirely up to the jury. In a recent case that I was a part of a jury for involving a tenant being evicted for not paying rent we ended up awarding the apartment complex the entire back rent minus X percent because it was December and some were feeling generous because of it. That, and there were some doubts about the apartment manager's handling of things.
 
We should put disclaimer on everything:lol::devil: like the one on a heat gun: "Do not use as a blow dryer" :eek::oops::whistle:
CT1138 is right: put a disclaimer at the beginning or end of a trailer and voilà! No frivolous law suits.
 
My percentage stuff was what's the bar for being able to sue, nothing to do with damages.

As I flatly stated, their damages are a whopping 5-10 bucks. I suppose if they sat through the 2 hours, you could add 2 hours of their time. That's it. I also mentioned before i'd saddle them with at least half the costs in the event they won as well so they'd end up a net negative for wasting everyone's time over this.
Sorry. I misread your comment.
 
We should put disclaimer on everything:lol::devil: like the one on a heat gun: "Do not use as a blow dryer" :eek::oops::whistle:
CT1138 is right: put a disclaimer at the beginning or end of a trailer and voilà! No frivolous law suits.
That's just silly...
Everyone knows it takes longer with a Heat gun and you never get That natural curl look :D
 
Most products do come with a disclaimer of some sort because in general, people are just stupid. I think hair dryers come with a warning that says do not put in water.
Disclaimers were put in place to protect brands from lawsuits. One can argue that a lot of useful concepts are not leaving the drawing board for that reason:devil: It's not only stupid people using the courts to get rich; it's also ambulance chasers who make it a way of life and making it very expensive for our society in the end:mad:
 
Most products do come with a disclaimer of some sort because in general, people are just stupid. I think hair dryers come with a warning that says do not put in water.
The canteens that I was issued when I was in the Marines had a disclaimer on the bottom about not exposing them to flames/fire and, I think, high heat. You'd think that would be obvious since they were plastic canteens.
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top