Amazon cleared in "age discrimination" case

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Feher

Ah yes. My post was off topic. This case is a foolish one.
But if she really cared about the issue, she could have filed a case for Right to privacy instead of "Right to Million Dollars"

Lawyers can get in trouble for filing suits alleging that nothing illegal was done.

[Feher]

Originally Posted by taustin

Lawyers can get in trouble for filing suits alleging that nothing illegal was done.

Oh my naivety
again off topic: So what should be done if i want to fight for the issue of "Right to Privacy"

[NickyWithNook]

I can understand her frustration. Women lose a lot of work in Hollywood after 40. But that isn't Amazon's fault, so the suit isn't reasonable.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by JoeD

If companies are not giving her work because of her age, even if she looks good for the part and has the talent, then it's they who are age discriminating. Of course, that's probably hard to prove which is why she's gone after IMDB, however that doesn't make what she's tried to do right imo.

You seem to think that the title of the thread is accurate. It probably comes from this:

The database's stance drew criticism in 2011 from two acting unions, who accused the site of "facilitating age discrimination".

The actress' accusation:

In court documents filed anonymously in 2011, Amazon and its movie database subsidiary were accused of breach of contract, fraud, violation of privacy and consumer protection laws.

She paid them for a service (she signed up to the IMDbPro service) and they changed that data that she gave them.

Originally Posted by taustin

The problem is Hollywood's perception that the audience isn't interested in older women characters. They're wrong, and they've begun to realize it in recent years (especially a baby boomers age), but the prejudice is still there.

The problem here is that an actress in her 40's who looks 30 can't get parts for a character in her 30's because her actual age is known, and she can't get parts for a character in her 40's because she doesn't look that like she is in her 40's.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Another point to consider is that it's IMDb's responsibility to provide accurate information on their system, not pander to the foibles of vain actresses.

But IMDB in this case isn't just a website that gathers information. They had a contract with her.

Originally Posted by Feher

Ah yes. My post was off topic. This case is a foolish one.
But if she really cared about the issue, she could have filed a case for Right to privacy instead of "Right to Million Dollars"

She filed a case for breach of contract, fraud, violation of privacy and consumer protection laws.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Feher

Oh my naivety
again off topic: So what should be done if i want to fight for the issue of "Right to Privacy"

Start with a realistic definition of privacy. Someone's age isn't included. Period. Birth records are public in the US, as they should be.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The problem here is that an actress in her 40's who looks 30 can't get parts for a character in her 30's because her actual age is known, and she can't get parts for a character in her 40's because she doesn't look that like she is in her 40's.

You apparently don't watch too many movies, or know much about the people in them. Especially in the last 20 years or so. Catherine Zeta Jones doesn't seem to have any trouble getting acting jobs. Neither does Halle Berry, Courtney Cox, Debra Messing, Elizabeth Hurley, Helen Hunt, Jennifer Aniston, Jeri Ryan, Jodie Foster, Julia Roberts, Meg Ryan, Michelle Pfeiffer, Nicole Kidman, Rachel Weisz, Rene Russo, Renée Zellweger, Salma Hayek, Sandra Bullock (one of the highest paid actors in the world most years), Uma Thurman, Virginia Madsen, or Helen Mirren. And yet, all are at least 40 (Helen Mirren is nearly 70). None of them look anywhere near their true age, especially when made up for the camera.

Makeup artists are geniuses. They can make teenagers look 90, and they can make 40 year olds look 20 (or like teenagers). They can certain make a 40 year old look 40. (Except, of course, that as the baby boomers get older, they don't want 40 year olds to look 40, they want 40 year olds to look 20. Which, BTW, this woman easily can.)

The reason this womand can't get jobs acting is because she doesn't know the right people, and has no history of being in profitable movies. It's not nothing to do with being 40 and looking 30 (or looking 40, this is a golden age for older actresses looking for roles close to their actual age).

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

But IMDB in this case isn't just a website that gathers information. They had a contract with her.

And I'll bet that contract specifically requires her to provide accurate information, and specifically prohibits her from lying. So it was her who breached the contract first, then.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by taustin

You apparently don't watch too many movies, or know much about the people in them. Especially in the last 20 years or so. Catherine Zeta Jones doesn't seem to have any trouble getting acting jobs. Neither does Halle Berry, Courtney Cox, Debra Messing, Elizabeth Hurley, Helen Hunt, Jennifer Aniston, Jeri Ryan, Jodie Foster, Julia Roberts, Meg Ryan, Michelle Pfeiffer, Nicole Kidman, Rachel Weisz, Rene Russo, Renée Zellweger, Salma Hayek, Sandra Bullock (one of the highest paid actors in the world most years), Uma Thurman, Virginia Madsen, or Helen Mirren. And yet, all are at least 40 (Helen Mirren is nearly 70). None of them look anywhere near their true age, especially when made up for the camera.

Makeup artists are geniuses. They can make teenagers look 90, and they can make 40 year olds look 20 (or like teenagers). They can certain make a 40 year old look 40. (Except, of course, that as the baby boomers get older, they don't want 40 year olds to look 40, they want 40 year olds to look 20. Which, BTW, this woman easily can.)

The reason this womand can't get jobs acting is because she doesn't know the right people, and has no history of being in profitable movies. It's not nothing to do with being 40 and looking 30 (or looking 40, this is a golden age for older actresses looking for roles close to their actual age).

I don't know these women's ages off the top of my head, but I know who they are. Everybody's heard of them, so when choosing the cast nobody needs to look at their IMDB profile. And these are women that got famous when they were younger.

Originally Posted by taustin

And I'll bet that contract specifically requires her to provide accurate information, and specifically prohibits her from lying. So it was her who breached the contract first, then.

Actually I think that it is more likely that the accusation was dismissed for the opposite reason:
IMDbPro Terms and Conditions

7. Submissions

You agree that any materials, including but not limited to questions, comments, suggestions, ideas, plans, notes, drawings, original or creative materials or other information, provided by you in the form of e-mail or submissions to IMDb are non-confidential and shall become the sole property of IMDb. IMDb shall own exclusive rights, including all intellectual property rights, and shall be entitled to the unrestricted use of these materials for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, without acknowledgment or compensation to you. The submission of any materials to IMDb, including the posting of materials to any forum or interactive area, irrevocably waives any and all "moral rights" in such materials, including the rights of paternity and integrity.

8. Disclaimer

IMDB'S ON-LINE SERVICES AND ANY MATERIALS PROVIDED THEREIN, INCLUDING ANY SOFTWARE, ARE PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. IMDB DISCLAIMS, AND YOU HEREBY WAIVE, ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IMDB DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT ITS ON-LINE SERVICES OR ANY MATERIALS CONTAINED THEREIN ARE ACCURATE, COMPLETE, RELIABLE, CURRENT, OR ERROR-FREE. IMDB DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT ITS ON-LINE SERVICES OR ITS SERVER(S) ARE FREE OF VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS.

IMDb reserves the right to change or modify any and all content, functionality, or operation of its On-line Services at any time without notice. Reference to any products, services, processes, or other information, by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, supplier, or otherwise does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof by IMDb.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by jersysman

Just another crazy lawsuit clogging the courts.

Nowhere near as much as:

Apple vs Samsung
Oracle vs Google
SCOG vs IBM
SCOG vs Novell
SCOG backruptcy

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Actually I think that it is more likely that the accusation was dismissed for the opposite reason:
IMDbPro Terms and Conditions

The accusation wasn't dismissed; she lost a jury trial. Which suggests that there was at least some doubt in the contract language.

While I think the jury *probably* reached the right verdict here (although I don't know much about the case other than what I've read in the linked articles), it's less of an easy case than people are making it seem, due to the misleading "age discrimination" title as well as due to the fact that there is something like imdp-pro.

If you hire an ad agency to run a promotion to help your restaurant and they add to the commercials information about health department citations your restaurant has received in the last couple of years, you can clearly bring an action against the agency for including the health department citations, even though they are publicly available.

Similarly, if you hire a publicist and the publicist spreads damaging information about you, there has clearly been some kind of breach in this case, too.

So I can see why Hoang might have thought that when she signed up for imdb pro (which states on their website: "Your IMDb page is your industry calling card. Put your best face forward.), that it might give her some control over what went on her page, like an ad would. Why pay otherwise? And what are you paying for?

Presumably, those questions were answered at trial. But I had no idea that imdb was anything but an ad-supported database of movie information (not that I looked into it at all), so I do think it was kind of sailing close to the line. (Although it was never a million dollar line they were sailing close to...).

[Sil_liS]

If anyone cares:
(Source: Scribd)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION
The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) promises in its agreement that users “will always receive notice when information about you might go to third parties, and you will have an opportunity to choose not to share the information.” Relying on that promise,actress Junie Hoang agreed to IMDb’s terms and, as IMDb required, she disclosed her private credit-card information. But IMDb did not comply with its own agreement.Instead, it misappropriated Hoang’s private credit-card information and publicly posted her age on IMDb’s website—without giving her notice or obtaining her consent. Now,casting directors know that Hoang is over 40, and her career is damaged. IMDb’s disclosure violated its privacy-policy agreement and Washington’s Consumer Protection Act. These facts are undisputed. Thus, the Court should grant summary judgment in Hoang’s favor on both claims.
[...]
II. FACTS
[...]
Defendants falsely told this Court that they did not use Hoang’s payment information to obtain Hoang’s birth date and update the IMDb website. (
Compare Dkt.No. 15 at 7:15-26 and11:27-35, with Cairella 30(b)(6) Dep. at 31:15-32:16, 36:12-16;Cairella Dep. at 46:7-47:17, 58:25-59:9, Whitcomb Dep. at 10:2-17.) In Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Defendants attacked Hoang for making “the unreasonable assertion that her birth date could be obtained from no source other than her credit card data and that it is therefore her belief that Defendants obtained her birth date using her credit card information… which Defendants deny .” (Dkt. 15 at 7:15-26 (emphasis added).)Defendants also represented that Hoang made false statements by alleging “that Defendants used her credit card information to obtain her date of birth…”. (Dkt. 15 at11:27-35.) Yet, IMDb did obtain Hoang’s legal name from her payment information, and used it to uncover Hoang’s birth date. (Cairella 30(b)(6) Dep. at 31:15-32:16, 36:12-16;Cairella Dep. at 46:7-47:17, 58:25-59:9, Whitcomb Dep. at 10:2-17.)

IMDb compounded its unfair practices by violating PrivateEye.com’s terms of service. PrivateEye.com is a research tool into private information. It expressly limits IMDb’s dissemination of information from PrivateEye.com, providing that “You agree that you are only authorized to visit, view, and retain a copy of pages of this Site for your own personal use . . . you shall not duplicate, download, publish, modify, or otherwise distribute the material on this Site for any commercial use[.]” (Hoang Decl. at Ex. H.)IMDb’s actions—taking Hoang’s private consumer information from her, and then breaching a contract with PrivateEye.com by displaying Hoang’s private information for IMDb’s commercial gain—are exactly the types of unfair practices forbidden by the CPA.

So IMDb used her credit card information to get her legal name, and used her legal name to get her date of birth from PrivateEye.com, which they were not actually allowed to distribute.

Hoang requests that the Court enter judgment against IMDb and Amazon, including injunctive relief requiring IMDb to immediately remove Hoang’s birth date and age, and allow a jury to determine the specific damage amount.

According to this, she didn't ask for a million dollars. She didn't ask for any specific amount.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I don't know these women's ages off the top of my head,

They're all over 40.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

but I know who they are. Everybody's heard of them, so when choosing the cast nobody needs to look at their IMDB profile. And these are women that got famous when they were younger.

So you'd agree, then, that this woman's problem isn't that she's 40, it's that she's been an actor for, what, 20+ years, and never made it big?

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

If you hire an ad agency to run a promotion to help your restaurant and they add to the commercials information about health department citations your restaurant has received in the last couple of years, you can clearly bring an action against the agency for including the health department citations, even though they are publicly available.

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.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by taustin

So you'd agree, then, that this woman's problem isn't that she's 40, it's that she's been an actor for, what, 20+ years, and never made it big?

I'm sure that she has many problems, including the small percentage of roles for women of Asian descent. The point for this trial was to show if she actually lost jobs because of her actual age being shown:

After IMDb publicly disclosed Hoang’s age, her work slowed. (7/26/2012 HoangDep. 221:2-222:3.) She received half as many roles than before IMDb posted her age in2008. (8/7/2012 Hoang Dep. at 464:6-465:1; Kolkowitz Dep. at 47:14-25.) In a film called Consequences , for example, the casting director initially hired Hoang but then rejected her as too old after seeing Hoang’s age on IMDb. (7/26/2012 Hoang Dep.196:19-198:15.) On another project, the casting director rejected Hoang because the director was “concerned about the age range”. And for another film, the casting director rejected Hoang shortly after Hoang provided the director with a link to her IMDb profile.(7/26/2012 Hoang Dep. at 213:4-214:16, 216:6-218:24.) Finally, Hoang lost a role to another actress whose age is not revealed on IMDb. (Hoang Decl. at ¶ 8.)

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I'm sure that she has many problems, including the small percentage of roles for women of Asian descent. The point for this trial was to show if she actually lost jobs because of her actual age being shown:

No, the point of this trial was that she rolled the dice on an unlikely claim, and lost. When there are, literall, thousands of people for every role, who on paper are identically qualified, well, think about it.

She whined about not being a success, and the jury didn't sympathize. Welcome to Hollywood.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by taustin

No, the point of this trial was that she rolled the dice on an unlikely claim, and lost. When there are, literall, thousands of people for every role, who on paper are identically qualified, well, think about it.

She whined about not being a success, and the jury didn't sympathize. Welcome to Hollywood.

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.