Comments on: “Actress sues Amazon over her age on its IMDb site”

By: Don

Don — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:28:33 +0000

I thought that people were free to publish true facts of public record about people. The date of birth of everyone is a matter of public record and is available from many different sources.

Did she not read the TOS when she signed up for IMdB’s service? I am sure that they only acted in accordance the contract she signed.

By: Beldar

Beldar — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 05:29:21 +0000

See also this analysis, especially re (what strikes me as a likely) misuse of the "Jane Doe" privilege.

By: Richard A Harrison

Richard A Harrison — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:03:54 +0000

Seems like a stretch to me and more of a “cause” case filed by famed “Internet” attorney John Dozier. First, how much damage could possibly have been suffered by a self-described “lesser known forty year old actress”? And how will she possibly prove what work she would have received but didn’t because somebody saw her actual age on the IMDB site? Second, how is publishing information that by their own allegations is available from public records even actionable? They allege “unlawful” searches, but how can you unlawfully search public reocrds? Oh . . . so much wrong with this one.

By: Xmas

Xmas — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:12:53 +0000

Jenna Maroney?

By: kimsch

kimsch — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 01:59:21 +0000

Do we get to know her name if she loses the suit?

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 20:18:38 +0000

She’s entitled to damages. I’ll bet 500 people saw the site. For the eight people paying attention to her age, they probably thought .000001 percent differently about her. Someone will have to compute the math.

By: Ken Chan

Ken Chan — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:19:49 +0000

The Complaint is available @ Justia: Doe v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al