Two fans of actress Ana de Armas filed a lawsuit in January after renting the 2019 film “Yesterday.”
The two fans, Conor Woulfe and Peter Michael Rosza, paid $3.99 each to rent “Yesterday” on the Amazon Prime streaming service.
They decided to rent the film after they saw that the actor was in the trailer.
The disappointment was great when the boys realized that Armas had been cut from the film.
The film studio now risks being sued for false advertising.
Class action
Now Woulfe and Rosza are seeking at least $5 million from Universal in the case, which has been filed as a class action on behalf of other disappointed fans.
The two claim that they would not have paid the money to rent the film if they had known that the actress was not in it.
DISAPPOINTED: The two supporters were very disappointed that the actor did not appear in the film. Photo: Vianney Le Caer/AP Photos
The film studio Universal argued that movie trailers are entitled to broad protection under the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and the press.
Now US District Judge Stephen Wilson has decided that the fans have the law on their side – and will thus be able to take the case further.
Artistic work
The studio’s lawyers argue that a trailer is an artistic and expressive work, which tells a three-minute story that conveys the film’s theme. Therefore, they believe it should be considered non-commercial speech.
The judge reportedly rejected the argument and ruled that a trailer is commercial speech and is subject to the “California False Advertising Law” and the state’s “Unfair Competition Law”.
– Universal is right that trailers involve some creativity and editorial discretion, but this creativity does not outweigh the commercial nature of a trailer, Wilson wrote in his ruling.
– A trailer is an advertisement designed to sell a film by giving consumers a preview of the film.
Comparing Jurassic Park
Universal’s lawyers are said to have argued that it is not unusual for film trailers to contain clips that do not appear in the film.
Furthermore, they referenced Jurassic Park, another Universal film, which they say had a trailer that consisted entirely of non-film footage.
Universal also argued that classifying trailers as “commercial speech” could open up many more lawsuits from disgruntled moviegoers, who could make a subjective claim that a movie did not live up to the expectations created by the trailer.
