Amazon cleared in "age discrimination" case

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by taustin

Keep in mind that, in this scenario, you've lied to the ad agency, and told them you got an A when you got a B, C or D. On purpose. For the specific purpose of deceiving potential customers.

So? If 4 out of 5 dentists don't really prefer Crest, the ad agency can't conduct its own independent survey of dentists and use that number instead. \

The job of an ad is to make your product (if you're an actor, that's you) look good. If they deliberately make you look bad, they should expect to hear complaints, possibly legal ones.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Actually she complained about IMDb using credit card data from her payment to get information on her that they were not allowed to distribute due to the agreement with the source of the data as well as the agreement with herself.

She - deliberately - lied in her listing, with the conscious intent of deceiving potential employers, making any agreement she had with IMDB based on a fraudulent intent on her part. Pretty much negates the agreement.

And she is not allowed to sue for breach of contract with someone else. That's the sort of thing that gets lawyers in trouble.

Again, she whined that she couldn't get work, and the jury didn't sympathize.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

So? If 4 out of 5 dentists don't really prefer Crest, the ad agency can't conduct its own independent survey of dentists and use that number instead. \

If you have evidence that whatever survey that claim is based on was falsified, you should complain to the FCC. It's illegal to do things like that. Really.

And manipulating a survey to get the results you want isn't the same thing as a deliberate lie, legally or morallyl.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

The job of an ad is to make your product (if you're an actor, that's you) look good. If they deliberately make you look bad, they should expect to hear complaints, possibly legal ones.

Yeah, but juries are notoriously unsympathetic to litigants that are at least a slimy as the other side. She deliberately lied with a fraudulent intent. Get over it.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by taustin

She - deliberately - lied in her listing, with the conscious intent of deceiving potential employers, making any agreement she had with IMDB based on a fraudulent intent on her part. Pretty much negates the agreement.

And she is not allowed to sue for breach of contract with someone else. That's the sort of thing that gets lawyers in trouble.

Again, she whined that she couldn't get work, and the jury didn't sympathize.

Knowing that information on IMDb’s database—as opposed to IMDb’s internal records—is public, Hoang initially did not provide a birth date for her profile. (HoangDecl. ¶ 10.) Later, Hoang entered a 1978 birth date as an attempt to “flesh out” her acting persona’s biographical details. (7/26/2012 Hoang Dep. at 255:2-10.)
[...]
Rethinking her decision to enter an incorrect birth date, in 2007 and 2008 Hoang repeatedly asked IMDb to remove the information and leave her age unknown like other performers listed in the database. (See IMDb’s Ans. to 1 st ROGS at 7:40-48; Hoang Decl.at ¶ 14, Exs. E-1—E-12.) But instead, IMDb searched for Hoang’s legal name and personal information in their confidential payment records. (Cairella 30(b)(6) Dep. at31:15-32:16, 36:12-16; Cairella Dep. Ex. 7; Scully Decl. at Ex. J, August 3, 2012 of Thomas Whitcomb (the “Whitcomb Dep.) at 10:2-17.) IMDb then obtained Hoang’s birth date by using her publically-unknown legal name to conduct a paid search on a restricted database called PrivateEye.com. (Cairella Dep. at 46:7-47:17, 58:25-59:9, Ex. 6; IMDb’s Ans. to 1 st ROGS at 8:38-45.) IMDb never notified Hoang that it conducted this search.(Cairella 30(b)(6) Dep. at 39:6-14.) And even though it knew Hoang objected to IMDb sharing her personal information, IMDb published Hoang’s age on her IMDb profile—violating PrivateEye.com’s express terms of service in the process by publishing information from PrivateEye.com’s database. (Hoang Decl. at ¶ 15, Ex. H.)

As I pointed before, her agreement with IMDb doesn't actually require her to give accurate information. She wasn't in breech of contract. Also, as I pointed out before, IMDb also violated PrivateEye.com's terms of service.

I don't have a problem with actors lying about their age, favorite food or natural hair color. They are actors, they play parts, their whole job is about deception.

I do have a problem with a jury concluding that a company can give credit card information to a third party without any repercussions.

[K. Molen]

Are we only taking her word for how IMDb got her true age? Or have they admitted to how they got it? IMDb allows users to submit data, I have done so on many occasions myself, so it could easily have been someone she knows who submitted her age, instead of IMDb doing all that legwork.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by K. Molen

Are we only taking her word for how IMDb got her true age? Or have they admitted to how they got it? IMDb allows users to submit data, I have done so on many occasions myself, so it could easily have been someone she knows who submitted her age, instead of IMDb doing all that legwork.

I really don't see that it matters. Nobody is claiming that the age that IMDb have published is anything other than her correct age. The whole basis for her complaint appears to be that IMDb have interfered with her ability to obtain work fraudulently on the basis of false information!

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by K. Molen

Are we only taking her word for how IMDb got her true age? Or have they admitted to how they got it? IMDb allows users to submit data, I have done so on many occasions myself, so it could easily have been someone she knows who submitted her age, instead of IMDb doing all that legwork.

In what I quoted, Cairella is IMDb’s customer service manager (Giancarlo Cairella). So this is what IMDb’s customer service manager said at the trial.

[Sil_liS]

It's analogy time!

If this would be a story about a Hispanic woman who can pass for Caucasian, looking for a job in a market that discriminates against Hispanics that said on her profile on website that is an important source of reference for employers that she is is Caucasian, only to have the website use her credit card information to find out about her ancestry and then change her profile data, would her actions be considered fraudulent?

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

As I pointed before, her agreement with IMDb doesn't actually require her to give accurate information. She wasn't in breech of contract.

Have you read the entirety of the agreement?

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Also, as I pointed out before, IMDb also violated PrivateEye.com's terms of service.

And as I pointed out, that's between IMDB and PrivateEye.com, and she has no legal standing in that issue. She's not allowed to sue them for that specific act.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I don't have a problem with actors lying about their age, favorite food or natural hair color. They are actors, they play parts, their whole job is about deception.

I don't either. But I'm not going to sympathize (and neither, apparently, is at least one jury) when they get caught at it.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I do have a problem with a jury concluding that a company can give credit card information to a third party without any repercussions.

You, too, have no standing in that matter whatsoever. If they did so in violation of their merchant agreement, that's between them and their merchant service. If they did so as allowed in their merchant agreement, no violations have occured. You are not part of that equation.

She sued over privacy regarding information that isn't private. And lost.

If you don't like it, don't use their web site.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

It's analogy time!

If this would be a story about a Hispanic woman who can pass for Caucasian, looking for a job in a market that discriminates against Hispanics that said on her profile on website that is an important source of reference for employers that she is is Caucasian, only to have the website use her credit card information to find out about her ancestry and then change her profile data, would her actions be considered fraudulent?

Completely invalid analogy. Discriminating on the basis of ethnicity is illegal. Discriminating on the basis of age, generally speaking, is not.

Plus, to make it a a little closer to not being invalid, the job she's looking for is a role in a movie, remember. And let's say she looks caucasian, but the character is black.

Regardless of what analogy you might imagine you've come up with, the discrimination she faces is not illegal, and her actions were intended to deceive potential employers. Now, of course, that's par for the course in Hollywood, on both sides, but so is digging out the deception. She knew that.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by taustin

And as I pointed out, that's between IMDB and PrivateEye.com, and she has no legal standing in that issue. She's not allowed to sue them for that specific act.

She didn't sue them for that specific act. The point of bringing it up is that IMDb was not allowed to distribute the information that they obtained from PrivateEye.com.

Originally Posted by taustin

You, too, have no standing in that matter whatsoever. If they did so in violation of their merchant agreement, that's between them and their merchant service. If they did so as allowed in their merchant agreement, no violations have occured. You are not part of that equation.

Setting a legal precedent that a company can use credit card information without any consequences affects anyone who uses a credit card.

Originally Posted by taustin

She sued over privacy regarding information that isn't private. And lost.

NIST Guide to Protecting the Confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information (PII)

PII is ―any information about an individual maintained by an agency, including (1) any information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual‘s identity, such as name, social security number, date and place of birth, mother‘s maiden name, or biometric records; and (2) any other information that is linked or linkable to an individual, such as medical, educational, financial, and employment information.

The date of birth is private. IMDb could access it via PrivateEye.com using her credit card information, but it did so by agreeing not to distribute the information.

Originally Posted by taustin

Completely invalid analogy. Discriminating on the basis of ethnicity is illegal. Discriminating on the basis of age, generally speaking, is not.

Meet the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

PROHIBITION OF AGE DISCRIMINATION

SEC. 623. [Section 4]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be unlawful for an employer-

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age;

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s age; or

(3) to reduce the wage rate of any employee in order to comply with this chapter.

(b) It shall be unlawful for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or other*wise to discriminate against, any individual because of such individual’s age, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of such individual’s age.

Originally Posted by taustin

Plus, to make it a a little closer to not being invalid, the job she's looking for is a role in a movie, remember. And let's say she looks caucasian, but the character is black.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear, the analogy wasn't with her as an actress. I said "a market that discriminates against Hispanics", considering that I don't know which job market specifically discriminates against Hispanics, and that the job itself is not the point, but the discrimination, and a person lying to bypass said discrimination.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

She didn't sue them for that specific act. The point of bringing it up is that IMDb was not allowed to distribute the information that they obtained from PrivateEye.com.

The point of bringing it up is irrelevant, since it is irrelevant to the case.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Setting a legal precedent that a company can use credit card information without any consequences affects anyone who uses a credit card.

Since it is irrelevant to the case, and wasn't part of it, no precedent was set. There are no new legal issues there whatsoever. That issue is governed by IMDB's contract with their merchant service. If their merchant service doesn't see fit to puruse the matter, it's no one else's business.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

NIST Guide to Protecting the Confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information (PII)

The date of birth is private.

Only in a limited context. Birth records are public records.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

IMDb could access it via PrivateEye.com using her credit card information, but it did so by agreeing not to distribute the information.

They had no contractual obligation to the plaintiff in this case. She had no standing in the issue.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Meet the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

There's nothing arbitrary about age discrimination in Hollylwood.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Perhaps I didn't make it clear, the analogy wasn't with her as an actress.

Indeed. That's why it was irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I said "a market that discriminates against Hispanics", considering that I don't know which job market specifically discriminates against Hispanics, and that the job itself is not the point, but the discrimination, and a person lying to bypass said discrimination.

You're trying to push emotional buttons by playing the race card, and doing so poorly, because your analogy is unrelated to the case at hand. I can only assume you're doing so because you know the facts are not on your side.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by taustin

The point of bringing it up is irrelevant, since it is irrelevant to the case.

It is relevant to the case, because IMDb had no right to distribute the information.

Originally Posted by taustin

Since it is irrelevant to the case, and wasn't part of it, no precedent was set. There are no new legal issues there whatsoever. That issue is governed by IMDB's contract with their merchant service. If their merchant service doesn't see fit to puruse the matter, it's no one else's business.

It is relevant, and the issue is governed by the agreement between IMDb and its customer.

Originally Posted by taustin

Only in a limited context. Birth records are public records.

They are public records but that doesn't mean that they are available for public viewing. The Records Preservation and Access Committee of The Federation of Genealogical Societies and The National Genealogical Society recommends that birth records be open to the public not less than one - hundred (100) years after the event.

Originally Posted by taustin

They had no contractual obligation to the plaintiff in this case. She had no standing in the issue.

Again, that is not the point. IMDb was not allowed to distribute the information.

Originally Posted by taustin

There's nothing arbitrary about age discrimination in Hollylwood.

You do realize that I was replying to this:

Originally Posted by taustin

Discriminating on the basis of ethnicity is illegal. Discriminating on the basis of age, generally speaking, is not.

Age discrimination is illegal, and as you pointed out before:

Originally Posted by taustin

Yeah, it's amazing what a good makeup artist can do with a bucket of spackle and a trowel.

... Hollywood has absolutely no valid reason to discriminate based on age.

Originally Posted by taustin

Indeed. That's why it was irrelevant.

I don't think that you understand how analogies work.

Originally Posted by taustin

You're trying to push emotional buttons by playing the race card, and doing so poorly, because your analogy is unrelated to the case at hand. I can only assume you're doing so because you know the facts are not on your side.

I made an analogy by replacing the discrimination in question (age) with a different one (race). All forms of discrimination are supposed to push emotional buttons.

[taustin]

Sil_liS:

Let me see if I undestand your position correctly:

You are concerned that the jury did not rule in favor of the plaintiff based on information that wasn't (and couldn't be, since she had not standing) part of the case, and that this will somehow create a precedent, even though legal precedent cannot be established at the trial court level?

Your complain isn't with IMDB, it's with their merchant service (assuming they violated the merchant agreement, which no one has alleged), and with the private eye whatever web site, which they don't seem to care about.

You should write them each a letter, and encourage them to pursuse civil action for the illegal acts you believe were committed against them. The actress in this case can't do so, because she has no standing to do so.

No precedent can be set here, since the issue you're worried about wasn't actually part of this case.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by taustin

If you have evidence that whatever survey that claim is based on was falsified, you should complain to the FCC. It's illegal to do things like that. Really.

This is not about the FCC. It's about the ad company doing independent research and putting that on the commercial. They can't do that.

And manipulating a survey to get the results you want isn't the same thing as a deliberate lie, legally or morallyl.

So? That is not relevant to the example above.

.

Yeah, but juries are notoriously unsympathetic to litigants that are at least a slimy as the other side. She deliberately lied with a fraudulent intent. Get over it.

"Get over it?" I'm not the one filling the board with posts on this topic discussing "spackle" and how there is no such thing as "age discrimination." I was curious why Hoang thought she could win an age discrimination case, and how a case like that even made it to the jury...and it turns out it wasn't an age discrimination case at all, but a contract case which was sufficiently close that it made it to the jury.