Some trailers stray a bit from what the movie is actually about and even exclude some scenes in the movie's final cut. However, Ana de Armas' fans are not having it and sued Universal City Studios for including her in the trailer but not in the movie.
Why It's a Big Deal for the Fans
Ana de Armas wasn't just some cameo in the film "Yesterday." She was part of the love triangle in the movie. In case you don't know what the movie's premise is about, it follows the protagonist waking up and finding that everyone but him doesn't know that The Beatles existed.
As mentioned in The Verge, Ana de Armas was cut because the audience did not like that the main character had a potential connection with her. The protagonist only met de Armas' character on a talk show, where he sang "Something" by The Beatles.
Since it could affect the viewership of the movie, the scene was deleted in the final cut. This then resulted in upsetting a whole new set of fans, which is arguably worse since they decided to sue because of their disappointment.
Read Also: Netflix September 2022: Here are the New Movies, Original Series You Can Stream
Suing the Studio Behind 'Yesterday'
A federal class action suit was issued by Conor Woulfe and Peter Michael Rosza, on the grounds that the trailer was false advertising. Fans were led to believe that Ana de Armas had a substantial role in the film, which she was evidently cut out of.
Woulfe and Rosza said that they both paid $3.99 to rent the movie on Amazon, and the key factor why they did was because Ana de Armas was in it. The price they both paid is nothing compared to what they are suing for, which costs $5 million, as mentioned in AV Club.
Reports say that a California judge ruled in favor of the two who filed the lawsuit. It was said that the trailer can be considered "commercial speech," which qualifies for the California False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law.
Since Ana de Armas' appearance in the trailer was a selling point for some and would not have purchased or rented the film otherwise, it technically does count as false advertising since viewers won't get to see what they paid for.
Universal City Studios reasoned that it was more of an "artistic" and "expressive" work rather than "commercial speech." US District Judge Stephen Wilson stated that creativity and editorial discretion does not outweigh the commercial nature of the trailer.
Universal Studios also expressed that the ruling against them could set a dangerous precedent for similar potential incidents. This might encourage other to sue a studio for being disappointed at a trailer whether or not they actually are.
The legal team of the studio argued that a trailer would be stripped of full First Amendment protection. Litigation could also occur when a person claims that the movie doesn't fit into the genre they expected based on the trailer.
Related: Amazon Orders a Miniseries About FTX Downfall, Russo Brothers Reportedly Directing
