Ana de Armas Fans Sue Universal for Cutting Actress Out of “Yesterday,” Alleging Deceptive Marketing

Tsing

The FPS Review
Staff member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
12,595
Points
113
no-time-to-die-paloma-poster-1024x576.jpg
Image: MGM



A federal class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal by two Ana de Armas fans who claim they were fooled into watching Danny Boyle’s musical rom-com from 2019, Yesterday.



Conor Woulfe, 38, of Maryland, and Peter Michael Rosza, 44, of San Diego County, California, paid $3.99 to rent Yesterday on Amazon Prime after seeing de Armas in the trailer but were shocked to find that all of her scenes had been cut from the film. That led the pair to file the aforementioned lawsuit, which is seeking at least $5 million for what they allege is deceptive marketing.









“Because consumers were promised a movie with Ana De Armas by the trailer for ‘Yesterday,’ but did not receive a movie with any appearance of Ana de Armas at all, such consumers were not provided with any value for their rental or purchase,” a portion of the lawsuit states.



Released in...
Click to expand...

Continue reading...


 
5 million bucks for a 3.99 movie rental? Good luck! Where there is a shady lawyer, there is a way.

I bet this gets settled out of court for $25 in on-demand movie credit and a box of skittles.
 
I mean, let's presume that they are being honest, and the only reason they saw the film was because of this actress, the extent of their loss was $3.99 and maybe 116 minutes of their time.

Even with unheard of levels of damages, there is no way you get to $5M.

Are these people high?

I would throw the case out and fine them for wasting the courts time.
 
Zarathustra said:
I mean, let's presume that they are being honest, and the only reason they saw the film was because of this actress, the extent of their loss was $3.99 and maybe 116 minutes of their time.

Even with unheard of levels of damages, there is no way you get to $5M.

Are these people high?

I would throw the case out and fine them for wasting the courts time.
Click to expand...

Do you not remember back when piracy was a big thing and companies was going after the average Joe who was downloading movies/songs off torrents and then suing them for millions?

How's this any different?
 
Case has Merit. Lets say you bought a case of ummm wine spritzers... and in the advertisements for the Spritzers the Cherry flavor spritzer was marketed and this is why you bought it. Upon discovering only after opening the case to enjoy it that there are NO cherry Spritzers. And the retailer was unable or is unable to give a refund.

If you consider that the flavor in question is why you bought the product but most everyone else shrugged it off or the retailers handled the refund amenably then why would you sue? Because the product maker needs to be held accountable for false advertising. And this IS false advertising.

Now you could make the debate that the consumer in this case ordered the movie X. Was delivered the Movie X. And hence the contract was fulfilled and the consumer has no loss.

Unless the consumer can prove they didn't consume the movie... or has a actual case of not getting what they paid for. AND since the movie was materially different from the trailer down to the level of cast they might actually have a case.

IT's like getting a bag of skittles but there are no green ones. Every other color on the picture is there... just no green skittles. If you can PROVE that was the case you would have issue to raise. Sure Skittles would probably just send you a new bag and be done with it. But what does a movie company do? Send you an 'directors cut' with the cut scenes on the house? Perhaps... but if they don't have the footage? How don they handle the loss?
 
LeRoy_Blanchard said:
Do you not remember back when piracy was a big thing and companies was going after the average Joe who was downloading movies/songs off torrents and then suing them for millions?

How's this any different?
Click to expand...

At least then they did the math.

They multiplied the songs by their retail sales cost. Some people had vast libraries that amounted to large numbers. They also factored in the number of times they shared them with others.

It was still wrong though, because they were double dipping, and secondly they counted them as real losses, as if it were physical property when most of the people they sued (kids) would never have actually been able to buy all the songs they had if they had to spend the money, so there were in reality very small financial losses.

Either way, they should give these people their $3.99 back and call it a day.

It is stupid.
 
Zarathustra said:
At least then they did the math.

They multiplied the songs by their retail sales cost. Some people had vast libraries that amounted to large numbers. They also factored in the number of times they shared them with others.
Click to expand...
I had two classmates in school get in hot water like that. They were served a ridiculous list of all music, movies, and software on their PC as a tally of damages. They literally just added up the MSRP of everything, including software like photoshop that no high schooler could ever buy.

But they weren't sued, it was the state bringing a criminal case against them. (or rather their parents, as minors were not prosecutable in my country at the time) So in the end they got a hefty fine. Which was reduced after they appealed it. I don't remember the exact numbers unfortunately.

The irony is that this was just slapped on top of the other case that got them in trouble in the first place. But since they already got their computers confiscated they might as well look for pirated stuff, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top