Actress sues Amazon for more than a million dollars

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by afa

*EDIT* Just checked Kristen Kreuk out on Wiki, and she was born on December 30, 1982. Not only is she well under 40, but is over 5 months younger than I am.

I knew that; I pointed her out because she *really* looks way younger than she is and might actually have trouble playing her age. She looks younger than a lot of teenagers.

Still don't think that's a handicap in Hollywood; there is no shortage of cute teenager roles.

[Connallmac]

Originally Posted by montsnmags

The eye of an occasional cynic sees a possibly less-than-"A-list" actress/celebrity using a law suit and the resultant Streisand Effect to raise her profile and possibly alter her casting type (to something more "mature") or emphasise her existing one. If the news media starts reporting this all over as "news", I would place money on a PR agent providing them with at least half their copy.

But I'm in a bad mood today, so take my cynicism with a grain of salt.

I was thinking along these lines as well. Perhaps she is just hoping to generate enough publicity to get noticed.

[elemenoP]

I think it was Juror #1 on Law and Order. You remember that episode, right? With the Asian woman on the jury who said, "we find the defendant guilty"?

Seriously, guys, there are a LOT of people on IMDB. I don't think it's anyone we've heard of.

And I'm all for "any press is good press" but if you don't release your name, then how does the press help you? If the name gets "accidentally" released (along with a sex tape, perhaps) then I will buy the Streisand Effect theory.

eP

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's a great shame that the US doesn't adopt the British practice of the loser of a court case having to pay the legal costs of both sides. It's s great discouragement to frivolous lawsuits.

I'd vote for that!

[crich70]

Originally Posted by HistoryWes

I don't think anybody pointed out that IMDB (and Wikipedia) has birth dates for just about any actor.

True and where they were born, plus they have agent contact links and other such data.

[rdfry]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's a great shame that the US doesn't adopt the British practice of the loser of a court case having to pay the legal costs of both sides. It's s great discouragement to frivolous lawsuits.

No we don't need this, what we need are better judges to toss frivolous lawsuits.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by rdfry

No we don't need this, what we need are better judges to toss frivolous lawsuits.

I'd prefer both.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by rdfry

No we don't need this, what we need are better judges to toss frivolous lawsuits.

I'd rather have Harry's proposal. The reason we have a jury system is precisely because we don't want our fates placed into the hands of a single government judge. When a single judge determines what is frivolous and what is not frivolous then the consequences will be a lot more disastrous than either frivolous lawsuits or loser pays.

[Keryl Raist]

I also prefer the loser pays system. The judge picks which cases are sensible and which aren't system is rife with problems. Not the least of which is Judges are humans, not computers, and they have a tendency to have their own understandings and prejudices. One judge's frivolous suit is another judge's crusade for justice.

But, alas, we don't do it that way. We are too concerned with the idea that doing so would write almost everyone out of the justice system, and that people with legitimate grievances would never go into court against bigger players because of fear of being out lawyered and then left with a humongous bill.

[rdfry]

Originally Posted by Keryl Raist

I also prefer the loser pays system. The judge picks which cases are sensible and which aren't system is rife with problems. Not the least of which is Judges are humans, not computers, and they have a tendency to have their own understandings and prejudices. One judge's frivolous suit is another judge's crusade for justice.

But, alas, we don't do it that way. We are too concerned with the idea that doing so would write almost everyone out of the justice system, and that people with legitimate grievances would never go into court against bigger players because of fear of being out lawyered and then left with a humongous bill.

Well that is exactly what would happen.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by rdfry

Well that is exactly what would happen.

You're only saying that because that is how it is throughout most of the planet.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by Keryl Raist

But, alas, we don't do it that way. We are too concerned with the idea that doing so would write almost everyone out of the justice system, and that people with legitimate grievances would never go into court against bigger players because of fear of being out lawyered and then left with a humongous bill.

This is definitely a valid point, but solutions are available to address this concern. For example, losers might only have to pay no more than the amount for which is being sued (or some other maximum figure). Another option would to have a pre-trial in which it is determined if a lawsuit has any merit. At that point a judge/mediator can decide who will pay if the case goes to trial.

[Pinecone]

Our legal system already allows for much of this. Either side can make motions to the judge for dismissal. If they make their case, the judge dismisses. No jury involved.

In most jurisdictions, you can counter sue for costs. The problem with loser pays, you cannot sue unless you can afford to pay. With counter suit, the judge (or jury) can decide what is a reasonable penalty for the frivalous suit.

And an attorney friend, says he prefers a judge trial to a jury trial. Judges actually listen to the evidence, versus juries getting emotional.

[ekster]

I wonder... maybe not publishing the name is all part of the plan.

I mean, sooner or later, someone will figure out and publish the name of the actress. And then, bang! Another lawsuit.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

In most jurisdictions, you can counter sue for costs. The problem with loser pays, you cannot sue unless you can afford to pay.

And without loser pays, you can't afford to defend an unjust case, but will be forced to settle, as otherwise even if you win, you lose. Neither way is ideal.