Law Movie studios can be sued for misleading trailers, judge rules - This should be interesting

Movie studios can be sued for misleading trailers, judge rules

Movie studios can be sued for misleading trailers, judge rules

ca.news.yahoo.com

Archive

Movie studios can be sued for misleading trailers, judge rules​

Brendan Morrow, Staff Writer
Thu, December 22, 2022 at 12:11 p.m. AST·2 min read

Coming soon to a courtroom near you: Lawsuits over misleading movie trailers.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson has ruled that movie studios can be sued for false advertising over deceptive trailers, Variety reports.

The decision came as part of a lawsuit filed against Universal by fans of actress Ana de Armas, who are seeking $5 million in damages after renting the movie Yesterday because she was in the trailer, only to find her scenes were cut from the movie.

Universal argued movie trailers are non-commercial speech and protected under the First Amendment, so the lawsuit should be dismissed. But the judge disagreed, concluding a trailer is fundamentally "an advertisement," so the plaintiffs can "proceed with their claims without offending the First Amendment."

The plaintiffs have not actually won the lawsuit, which has only been allowed to move forward to discovery. But Deadline noted the case could lead to studios being forced to tone down "the hyperbole visually, verbally and otherwise" in trailers to avoid litigation, even though it's common for film marketing to include scenes not in the final product.

Universal's lawyers also warned of creating a precedent in which studios are "subject to burdensome litigation" over an "unlimited number of disappointments a viewer could claim" about a film based on expectations from the trailer.

The judge did say, though, that the court's "holding is limited to representations as to whether an actress or scene is in the movie, and nothing else." This is as opposed to, for example, arguing a trailer does not properly convey the tone or genre of the film. A woman tried to make that argument in a previous lawsuit in relation to 2011's Drive, claiming the trailers wrongly suggested it would be an action movie "similar to the Fast and Furious." But an appeals court dismissed the case.

- end of article -​

Its not such a bad idea really. I mean false advertisement for other products is a thing thats prohibited so why should blatantly misleading trailers designed to encourage people to pay to see a movie be any different? Its not like its that uncommon either. Prime examples are the trailers for star trek first contact and highlander endgame - the former was like half scenes ripped from multiple tv series that had nothing to do with the film at all and the latter had scenes involving the use of some kind of magic shot specifically for the trailer and wasn't in the film at all or even remotely implied. So I can definitely see why this happened

 

[Übertroon]

I've never felt misled by a movie trailer. Sometimes it's fun to have things be subverted a bit.
The "Hunt the Chief" ad campaign for Halo 5 can fuck right off though. Literally had nothing to do with the game. I've experienced multiple game launches where all the footage is not in the game and hss nothing to do with the game or its plot.
No man's sky also would have deserved a good beating for all the lies.

 

[Tinnitus]

Imagine the salt coming from Naughty Dog if they´re sued for their TLOU 2 trailer.

 

[FILTH Tourist]

Their argument that an actress they wanted to see got cut in the final product I think has some weight to it because it is more concrete than the Drive argument.

I am curious on who will be liable though because trailers are often done by 3rd party companies and I don't know how much of the film they have access too.

Also there is the issue of purposefully deceiving the audience in the trailer for a twist in the final product like in MGS2. Or some tragity causes quick last minute edits like the cool twin tower scene that was in the Spiderman 1 trailer but was unsurprisingly absent from the final product.

 

[WonderWino]

I've never felt misled by a movie trailer. Sometimes it's fun to have things be subverted a bit.
The "Hunt the Chief" ad campaign for Halo 5 can fuck right off though. Literally had nothing to do with the game. I've experienced multiple game launches where all the footage is not in the game and hss nothing to do with the game or its plot.
No man's sky also would have deserved a good beating for all the lies.

Speaking of game trailers lets not forget colonial marines

 

[PS1gamenwatch]

Too bad they can't sue for giving away the ending

 

[WebLurker]

5 million?! For what?!

 

[Jet Fuel Johnny]

Maybe video game trailers can be next.

 

[Your Starter for 10]

Hopefully they will finally be forced to release the GotG cut with the "gardens of the galaxy" joke in it.

 

[buying gf]

Universal argued movie trailers are non-commercial speech

No way did they try to fucking argue in court that ads aren't ads.

In any case, fuck advertising companies and fuck Hollywood. Take them for all they've got.

 

[The Nothingness]

I'm still pissed at Miramax (Weinstein lol) for advertising Hero as something completely different from what it actually was. And they still did it for the synopsis on the back of DVD.

 

[Product Placement]

Movies change during editing, so understandable they maybe use cut or alt takes within the trailer. Or in some cases early trailers may in fact just made to let you know it's coming and to show you the tone.

However here a few trailers that for sure mislead the public, and were not part of the normal changes in making a movie.

Had a number of shoots made just for the trailer to fool the public into thinking it was more action-packed.

Or this bit in the trailer (in the real movie only just the first lazer pointer)

 

[xXx: State of the Union]

Maybe video game trailers can be next.

I feel like video game trailers get ahead of this with those "this trailer is of a development build and things are subject to change" disclaimers.

 

[Tasty Tatty]

Movies change during editing, so understandable they maybe use cut or alt takes within the trailer.

Yes, that is the issue here. Many trailers are made while the movie itself is still being made. And the people making the trailers aren't always connected with the people making the movie. They only use the material they are given in the moment, which could later change.

A solution is to put a warning on the trailer: "some scenes might not be included in the final release."

Or in some cases early trailers may in fact just made to let you know it's coming and to show you the tone.

Those are teasers. A lot of people call them trailers (they technically are), but the more appropriated name is teaser.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

5 million?! For what?!

I assume this a class action

 

[Idiotron]

But what if that's the point?
You're making a movie that seems to be one thing and then it becomes something completely different and that's the gimmick?
You can't show it in the trailer because the surprise is an essential part of the experience.
I'm talking about movies like From Dusk Till Dawn where, if you don't know what's coming, it's a cool 90's gangster movie and then out of the blue BOOM motherfucking vampires!!!
If you made a trailer for it that only showed the gangster part, would that be false advertising or would it be a great surprise for the viewers?

Sure, not many movies do that but some do.

I agree with a previous poster, this should apply to video games more than movies.
Aliens: Colonial Marines was a scam with a fake trailer, No Man's Sky was a scam, it's much more prevalent in this medium.

 

[Don't Tread on Me]

I mean it's one thing to cut a scene but if you remove an entire character then reshoot the trailer.

 

[Kuritan Deplorable]

But what if that's the point?
You're making a movie that seems to be one thing and then it becomes something completely different and that's the gimmick?
You can't show it in the trailer because the surprise is an essential part of the experience.
I'm talking about movies like From Dusk Till Dawn where, if you don't know what's coming, it's a cool 90's gangster movie and then out of the blue BOOM motherfucking vampires!!!

Having more than what is shown in the advertisements isn't going to be a problem - not having whats shown in the advertisements is whats going to be the problem here. As mentioned in the article, the judge is drawing a line around what is basically concrete fact - A specific scene, character, actor, etc. Unless the movie explicitly says "A gang action film" and then its actually a romcom with no gang action, they'll be fine to do so.

That being said, I wouldn't object to the whole "Subvert expectations" thing being practically banned. Whole things become straight up abusive at this point as an excuse to just gaslight an audience then insult them when they don't appreciate it. The idea of playing with genre expectations and trope seems to have been replaced with "Lets call it a X movie and then just not make an X movie and then blame it on [anything]ism when it fails".

 

[Grundlejungle]

Hell yeah! Who wants to join a class action lawsuit for seeing " bridge to terabithia"? I wanted store brand narnia, not 2 hours of subtext about a kid getting molested by his teacher.

 

[whatever I feel like]

game company execs balls immediately retract