In the United States, following an indictment issued against Universal Pictures in early 2022, a federal judge ruled last Tuesday that, in specific cases, a studio can face a lawsuit for releasing a movie trailer that is misleading to a significant number of viewers.
Such an opinion arises in the context of a case brought to court by two US citizens. It happens that in January of this year, both reported having been victims of false advertising; this because they rented the movie yesterday (2019) through a digital platform, convinced that the actress Ana de Armas was part of the cast, as they could see in an official trailer for the romantic comedy. And indeed, the advertising trailer shows some moments with the famous Cuban actress in the picture. However, De Armas does not appear in the final cut of the tape.
In yesterdayfrom director Danny Boyle, the protagonist named Jack Malick —a musician who by chance awakens in an alternate reality in which the Beatles never existed— was originally going to have a love affair with Roxane, a celebrity played by the actress from Blonde Y no time to die. In fact, the scenes with Ana de Armas were filmed, but ultimately did not make it to the final version of the film.
Even so, the distributor Universal Pictures chose to keep some fragments of that discarded material in the trailer for the film; a decision that three years later would lead to the legal mess in which the company is currently immersed.
You might also be interested in: Yesterday – Film Review
In the lawsuit filed against the studio in January 2022, the following paragraph (via) can be read:
“Since the trailer for yesterday promised consumers a film with Ana de Armas, but they did not receive any film in which Ana de Armas appeared, they were not provided any value for their rental or purchase.
According to Variety, Universal’s lawyers tried to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that the studio was covered by the First Amendment. They also argued that any film trailer is “an expressive and artistic work”; a product that tells its own story of a maximum of three minutes, at the same time that it conveys the theme of a film.
“Universal is correct that trailers involve some creativity and editorial discretion, but this creativity does not outweigh the commercial nature of a trailer,” US Judge Stephen Wilson said in writing. “At its core, a trailer is an advertisement designed to sell a movie and provides consumers with a preview of the movie.”
The study also stressed the misconception of classifying movie trailers as mere “commercial talk.” In his opinion, this would open the doors for any viewer to sue for the simple fact that a movie did not live up to the expectations created by the allegedly misleading trailer.
In response to such concerns, the same judge specified that the misleading advertising law in the US will only apply to trailers when a “significant part” of “reasonable consumers” feels scammed.
The case against Universal will only enter the discovery phase.
Antonio G. Spindola I have very bad memory. Out of solidarity with my memories, I choose to lose myself too. Preferably in a movie theater.