The Washington Post follows up on the class action filed against Sony over its use of a non-existent blurber to promote several movies (see Aug. 3, 2005, Mar. 13, 2004, Jun. 12, 2001) and finds that only 170 customers filed verified claims, resulting in a payout of $5,085 by the studio. Meanwhile, according to court papers, “the attorneys for the plaintiffs got $458,909. Sony paid an additional $250,000 for administrative fees and costs associated with alerting moviegoers to the settlement and processing the claims,” and donated to charity nearly all the $500,000 that had been set aside to pay consumers. As it happens, “news of the settlement went out on the news wires a month after the deadline to sign up as a claimant had passed”. California appellate judge Reuben Ortega, dissenting from his court’s decision to let the case go forward, had written: “This is the most frivolous case with which I have ever had to deal” and called it a “disgrace” and “farce”. (William Booth, “Big Payday for Lawyers In Sony Fake-Blurb Deal”, Washington Post, Sept. 10). More: Larry Ribstein comments (Sept. 10).
Posts Tagged ‘movies film and videos’
Sneak previews as securities law violations
The Securities and Exchange Commission is apparently looking into the question of whether for a movie company to hold prescreenings of upcoming movies for stock analysts “constitutes disclosure of material information to a group of select people”, thus potentially running afoul of public disclosure regulations. Bruce Carton (Aug. 26), Larry Ribstein (Aug. 26) and Tom Kirkendall (Aug. 29) comment.
Please, Mr. Crowe
Throw one at me. (Annabel Crabb, “Phone throw earns Crowe victim $14m”, Sun-Herald/Sydney Morning Herald, Aug. 14). More: Mike at Crime and Federalism (Aug. 14). Update Aug. 28: sources tell the New York Daily News the settlement was in the low six figures, far below the sum quoted in earlier reports.
Update: Sony pays $1.5 million to settle ghost-blurber suit
Another triumph of our class-action system: Sony Pictures has agreed to pay out $1.5 million to settle a class action on behalf of filmgoers allegedly persuaded to attend the films “Vertical Limit,” “A Knight’s Tale,” “The Animal,” “Hollow Man” and “The Patriot” by Sony’s use of a nonexistent reviewer, “David Manning”, to say nice things about the films in blurbs. “Manning” was listed in the blurbs as working for the Ridgefield Press, a genuine newspaper in Connecticut which however has never employed any such reviewer (Jun. 12, 2001, Mar. 13, 2004).
Class lawyer Norman Blumenthal said moviegoers would be able to collect $5 rebates by affirming that they attended the original runs of the movies; remaining moneys will go to charity. The AP’s coverage does not discuss how if at all the attendance claims are to be verified, nor the question of how much the lawyers are going to get in fees. When the California courts agreed to let the suit go forward as a class action, a dissenting judge called it a “farce” and “the most frivolous case with which I have ever had to deal”, saying: “We should be occupying ourselves with resolving legitimate disputes instead of laughable cases designed not to gain anything for the plaintiffs, but rather to generate fees for the only true beneficiaries of this disgrace, the attorneys.” (Alex Veiga, “Sony to Pay $1.5M Over Fake Movie Critic”, AP/Tuscaloosa (Ala.) News, Aug. 3).
Willy Wonka as defendant
Batman and The Incredibles aren’t the only ones who might want to worry about being taken to court over their astounding feats. (Christine Hurt, The Conglomerate, Jul. 24; scroll down for a comment from Ted).
Bad-mouthing Frodo
Okay, so lawyers constantly serve as press sources for coverage critical of the people they litigate against, but still…. After the New York Times reports on a revenue-splitting dispute between Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema (Ross Johnson, “The Lawsuit of the Rings”, Jun. 27), Jack Shafer wonders: “[S]houldn’t there be a Times policy against giving a partisan source, in this case a defense attorney, the cover of anonymity to call the plaintiff in a case against his client piggish?” (“Lord of the Pigs?”, Slate, Jun. 27).
“Batman Begins”: Bruce Wayne, Defendant
Morgan Spurlock sued
Attorney Samuel Hirsch, who filed the first lawsuits blaming fast-food chains for his clients’ obesity, apparently isn’t happy over his unflattering portrayal in the documentary Super Size Me (see last Aug. 9). According to the New York Observer, Hirsch is suing filmmaker Morgan Spurlock and Samuel Goldwyn Films charging “Negligence, Unauthorized Use of Likeness, Disparagement to Reputation, and Defamation of Character, Fraudulent Inducement, False Misrepresentation, Damage to Business Reputation”; he’s seeking compensatory and punitive damages and “disgorgement of profits.” (Jake Brooks, “Spurlock’s Super Size Lawsuit”, New York Observer, Mar. 7)(likely to rotate off free site soon).
Blockbuster late fees
The Washington Monthly’s Amy Sullivan really admires the lawsuit filed against the movie rental chain over its new “no more late fees” pricing structure, but blogger Mad Anthony doesn’t. See Jessica Seid, “Blockbuster sued over late fees”, CNN/Money, Feb. 18. Update Apr. 23: Blockbuster settles with AGs of 47 states.
“Why Hasn’t Tivo Improved?”
“Lawsuits are killing innovation. It’s a common story in the world of technology. Any time a company produces a disruptive technology that does something cool, they have to have a legal department that is bigger than their engineering unit to survive, and that sucks for business, sucks for customers, and sucks for the technology industry. I work around lawyers all day and I wish this was a bigger issue with the public.
“Anything that helps customers enjoy TV, movies, or music is a target for lawsuits.” (Matt Haughey, PVRBlog, Jan. 21).