They sue Universal Studios for promoting a film with Anna de Armas in which Ana de Armas does not appear.

The history of cinema is full of endless curiosities. Over time, anecdotes continue to be added and events are revealed. This is what happens with films that reveal issues related to the filming process or strange nights, as in titanic. It happens to actors and even fans. At the same time, a detailed view of some followers Ana de Armas led to legal action against universal studios.

We are talking about the suspicion that the study manipulated the image of the actress. Isn’t this a statement by Ana de Armas? May be. But no. This reaction comes from two admirers of the translator’s work. What is the claim based on? The trailer and purchase of the film, which left them dissatisfied to say the least; enough to make a legal trip.

These followers Conor Wolfresiding in Maryland, and Peter Michael, from San Diego, California. What happened to them? Both were in the movie yesterday, released in 2019, with the intention of seeing Ana de Armas in it because they saw her in the trailer. His disappointment came when, after paying nearly $4 on Amazon Prime to meet with a translator, she was no longer in the play.

Fans are interested in the film from the trailer, where the actress appears. But this scene was cut from the film during post-production. Then, Faced with what they considered to be fraud or a misleading offer, they decided to sue federal judge Steven Wilson.. What was the solution to this? According to information provided We got that coverStudios can be prosecuted under false advertising laws.

Ana de Armas fans
and his lawsuit against Universal

In contrast, Universal Studios believes that such action violates the protections that exist for various advances and other rights. This is, of course, an impulse of interest, more complex than what can be seen with the naked eye; in particular, from a legal point of view, a discussion involving the First Amendment.

Ana de Armas as Marilyn Monroe.

What is the position of Universal Studios? According to information provided DiversityThe lawyers of the study explained that each trailer is “an artistic and expressive work” aims to tell the story in a short amount of time while offering a general overview of the film, and as such should not be seen as a commercial discourse.

Given this argument, Judge Steven Wilson explained as follows:

“Universal is right that trailers do require some creativity and editorial discretion, but that creativity doesn’t outweigh the trailer’s commercial nature. Essentially, a trailer is an advertisement designed to sell a movie by giving consumers a preview of the movie.”

But the discussion doesn’t end there. Universal Studios provided other examples of trailers besides yesterday Ana de Armas, which showed some images that subsequently did not appear on the big screen. From the company’s point of view, these types of requirements can lead to scenarios where, if the film doesn’t live up to the expectations generated by moving forward, fans are free to set new requirements.

Given this, the federal judge recognized the validity of the suspicion. However, he clarified that the misleading advertising law could apply as long as it affected a “significant portion” of those interested in the content. To avoid possible second readings, the legal figure is back in business yesterday and Ana de Armas, explaining the following:

“The court’s decision is limited to notions of whether an actress or a scene is present in the film, and nothing more.“.

So, since Ana de Armas’ involvement in the trailer is significant, the federal judge finds the claim merited. What will happen now? The lawsuit is still on and fans of Conor Wolfe and Peter Michael are seeking $5 million in damages.