{"id":164948,"date":"2022-12-22T06:22:06","date_gmt":"2022-12-22T06:22:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/harchi90.com\/ana-de-armas-fans-lawsuit-puts-studios-at-risk-over-deceptive-trailers\/"},"modified":"2022-12-22T06:22:06","modified_gmt":"2022-12-22T06:22:06","slug":"ana-de-armas-fans-lawsuit-puts-studios-at-risk-over-deceptive-trailers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/harchi90.com\/ana-de-armas-fans-lawsuit-puts-studios-at-risk-over-deceptive-trailers\/","title":{"rendered":"Ana de Armas Fans’ Lawsuit Puts Studios at Risk Over Deceptive Trailers"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

Movie studios can be sued under false advertising laws if they release deceptive movie trailers, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.<\/p>\n

US District Judge Stephen Wilson issued a ruling in a case involving \u201cYesterday,\u201d the 2019 movie about a world without the Beatles.<\/p>\n

More from Variety<\/strong><\/p>\n

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 movie.<\/p>\n

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 \u201cartistic, expressive work\u201d that tells a three-minute story conveying the theme of the movie, and should thus be considered \u201cnon-commercial\u201d speech.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\u201cUniversal is correct that trailers involve some creativity and editorial discretion, but this creativity does not outweigh the commercial nature of a trailer,\u201d Wilson wrote. \u201cAt its core, a trailer is an advertisement designed to sell a movie by providing consumers with a preview of the movie.\u201d<\/p>\n

In their briefing on the issue, Universal’s lawyers argued that movie trailers have long included clips that do not appear in the finished film. They cited \u201cJurassic Park\u201d (another Universal film), which had a trailer comprised entirely of footage that is not in the movie.<\/p>\n

Universal also argued that classifying trailers as \u201ccommercial speech\u201d could open the door to a parade of arguments from dissatisfied filmgoers, who could make a subjective claim that a movie did not live up to the expectations created by the trailer.<\/p>\n