Ana de Armas

Actor appeared in trailer for 'Yesterday' even though she made no appearance in the film's final cut.

Woulfe and Rosza are seeking at least $5m (£4.1m) in damages and will represent a class of moviegoers. Universal sought to dismiss the case, claiming that trailers are entitled to free speech protection under the First Amendment. Therefore it should be considered “non-commercial” speech.

Ana De Armas fans are suing Universal Pictures for deceptive marketing in a trailer for the movie 'Yesterday.' Find out more.

"At its core, a trailer is an advertisement designed to sell a movie by providing consumers with a preview of the movie." [nature](https://parade.com/1034896/marynliles/nature-quotes/) of a trailer," wrote U.S. 20, the judge ruled that movie studios can be sued over false advertising in film trailers.

Despite Universal's lawyers' attempts to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing trailers are "non-commercial" speech, Wilson sided with the plaintiffs under the ...

The case was brought by two de Armas fans who alleged they rented [Danny Boyle's musical comedy](https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a27355071/yesterday-movie-review-the-beatles/) after seeing the actress in the trailer, only to discover her role was ultimately cut from the film. Her scenes didn't make the final cut after audience tests didn't appreciate Jack steering from his primary love interest, Lily James's Ellie. I mean really radiant," screenwriter Richard Curtis told [CinemaBlend](https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2475654/yesterday-cut-an-entire-character-from-the-film-that-would-have-changed-the-plot) at the time. [Variety](https://variety.com/2022/film/news/ana-de-armas-yesterday-false-advertising-1235467419/)). [Why Top Gun: Maverick has led to Paramount being sued](https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a42303879/top-gun-maverick-lawsuit-paramount/)

On Tuesday, a federal judge ruled that movie studios can now be sued under false advertising laws if they release deceptive trailers, Variety reported.

It’s possible that movie trailers may wind up carrying similar disclaimers, if movie studios get spooked by the prospect of future lawsuits similar to Yesterday’s. That studio is well known for including scenes in its trailers that do not appear in the final film, sometimes as the result of unfinished visual effects or reshot sequences. Game trailers, which are highly scrutinized by fans for their graphical fidelity and gameplay promises, often carry disclaimers explaining that they’re composed of “game engine footage,” if not gameplay footage, or that cinematic trailers are not representative of actual gameplay. Lawyers for Universal Pictures, which distributed the 2019 movie, argued that trailers have a long history of using shots that don’t make it into the theatrical release of a movie. They cited the trailer for Jurassic Park back in 1993, which didn’t include any footage of the movie as it functioned as a prologue for the premise. [Yesterday](https://www.polygon.com/2019/6/28/18761500/yesterday-movie-beatles-john-lennon-actor-cameo) follows a man played by Himesh Patel, who somehow ends up in a world where The Beatles don’t exist.

A pair of moviegoers are suing Universal Pictures after renting "Yesterday," a film that featured Ana de Armas in its trailer, but not in the actual film.

“Universal is correct that trailers involve some creativity and editorial discretion, but this creativity does not outweigh the commercial nature of a trailer,” Wilson wrote, according to Variety. because none of the ‘Yesterday’ film leads were famous.” “At its core, a trailer is an advertisement designed to sell a movie by providing consumers with a preview of the movie.” “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,” the lawsuit read. The company also tried to reason that allowing the lawsuit to proceed would expose movie studios to “burdensome litigation anytime a viewer claimed to be disappointed with whether and how much of any person or scene they saw in the trailer was in the final film; with whether the movie fit into the kind of genre they claimed to expect; or any of an unlimited number of disappointments a viewer could claim,” Although de Armas, in a scene involving The Beatles’ song “Something,” was cut from the final film, her footage was kept in the trailer and used to promote the the movie years after its release.

If you don't like a movie after seeing the trailer, you might be able to sue. A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that movie studios can be slapped with a ...

A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that movie studios can be slapped with a lawsuit under false advertising laws for misleading movie trailers.

The Golden Globe-nominated actress was featured in ads for the 2019 romantic-comedy, but her scenes were ultimately scrapped from its final cut.

As they wanted to be representative of moviegoers, the ruling could ultimately serve as a precedent for other suits concerning trailers – and affect how and when they’re made – depending on class certification. District Judge Stephen Wilson found “creativity does not outweigh the commercial nature of a trailer”, according to Variety. However, the Blonde star’s scenes were ultimately scrapped from its final cut.

Actor appeared in trailer for 'Yesterday' even though she made no appearance in the film's final cut.

Woulfe and Rosza are seeking at least $5m (£4.1m) in damages and will represent a class of moviegoers. Universal sought to dismiss the case, claiming that trailers are entitled to free speech protection under the First Amendment. Therefore it should be considered “non-commercial” speech.

Film studio Universal can be sued for false advertising after two fans complained a movie trailer was misleading, a US judge has ruled.

Some footage of these scenes featured in the trailer. In the case of the Yesterday trailer, he said, it was plausible that viewers would expect de Armas to have a significant role in the film. In their briefing on the issue, Universal's lawyers argued that it is not unusual for movie trailers to feature clips that do not appear in the finished film. "At its core, a trailer is an advertisement designed to sell a movie by providing consumers with a preview of the movie." But the judge rejected that argument, ruling that a trailer is commercial speech and is subject to the California False Adverting Law and the state's Unfair Competition Law. The pair argued they would not have paid the money to rent the film if they had known the actress did not feature in it.

The plaintiffs had rented Yesterday off Amazon.com's streaming service after watching the trailer. Read more at straitstimes.com.

“And I think the audience did not like the fact that his eyes even strayed.” He goes on to adopt the band’s songs as his own and becomes famous. Yesterday tells the story of Jack, a failed musician played by British actor Himesh Patel.

Two fans complained after the actress was cut from a film despite featuring in the trailer.

Some footage of these scenes featured in the trailer. In the case of the Yesterday trailer, he said, it was plausible that viewers would expect de Armas to have a significant role in the film. They referred to Jurassic Park, another Universal film, one trailer for which they said was comprised entirely of footage that is not in the movie. In their briefing on the issue, Universal's lawyers argued that it is not unusual for movie trailers to feature clips that do not appear in the finished film. "At its core, a trailer is an advertisement designed to sell a movie by providing consumers with a preview of the movie." But the judge rejected that argument, ruling that a trailer is commercial speech and is subject to the California False Adverting Law and the state's Unfair Competition Law.

Fans of Ana De Armas found troubles were not so far away when they paid to download the Beatles-inspired film Yesterday only to see the actress was not, ...

He said that because de Armas was prominently featured, any viewer would have expectations of her being in the final version. They also said that trailers often use footage not included in the final film, such as Jurassic Park - which was entirely re-edited. But Judge Wilson decided that because a trailer advertises a film, it should be considered “commercial speech” as opposed to the “non commercial speech” which Universal argued for.