Case: Sera Sera

[bcholmes]

Today's Globe includes an editorial called "I Came, I Saw, I Sued", which includes some interesting statements.

First, it brings up the apparently obvious truth that the US is the land of the frivolous lawsuit. Second, that Stella Awards honours such frivolous lawsuits. The awards are apparently named after Stella Liebeck, who sued McDonalds (I do wish people would bother to learn about that case). I suspect that the Stella Awards are about as meaningful (and truthful) as the Darwin Awards.

It then goes on to describe a totally frivolous lawsuit: a class action suit has been launched against Sony Pictures. Apparently, Sony made some commercials for movies such as Vertical Limit and The Hollow Man quoting a fictitious movie critic. And the facts of the case aren't disputed. Sony has acknowledge that one of its employees "embellished" the movie reviews by quoting "David Manning", a supposed film critic for The Ridgefield Press. Sony has fired the employee in question and apologised for its role in these misleading commercials.

What interests me is that the editorial apparently argues that it is frivolous to sue Sony for this deception. As if to say that it doesn't really matter that movie reviews were invented for the purposes of promoting a movie -- such a thing must not have had any effect on movie-goers.

Comments

Nice Pun!

[inefficient.livejournal.com]

Thanks for link and the think. I'd never read those McFacts before. Very interesting.

[jmthane.livejournal.com]

The Stella Awards may be as meaningful as the Darwins, but they are absolutely true, I'm sorry to say. Sorry because it shows just how much this is the Litigious States of America. Be glad you don't live here...

[rosefox]

Note the following from the Stella Awards site:

We know quite well that not all of the cases we present will turn out to be frivolous abuse of the American Justice System. Many of these cases indeed involve real issues, real injuries, and deserve real compensation. And some don't. That's why we stress that you should read the cases before you judge.

How about, for instance, Stella herself? Much of the coverage about Stella Liebeck has been grossly unfair. When you have a more complete summary of the facts, you might change your mind about her. Or maybe not -- that's up to you.

[...]The Court of Public Opinion has also issued its verdict: Stella has become an American icon. Rightly or wrongly, she is a symbol of the American Tort system gone wrong, and most have heard of her case -- and have an opinion on it. For more than 10 years, the term "Stella Award" has been used to refer to any lawsuit that sounds outrageous. Because of this huge name recognition, we chose to continue the name that has captured the public's attention like no other: "Stella Awards". But rather than use fabricated stories to illustrate a real problem, our goal is to legitimize the "Stella Awards" name by reporting real case stories (in the This is True tradition) to get the point across much more powerfully.

I'm a longtime fan of This is True, and Randy Cassingham. I'd be quite surprised if anything made it into the Stella Awards without being checked out pretty thoroughly.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

So part of the confusion, here, is my fault. The link I made to the Stella Awards site (which seems to refer to itself as the "TRUE Stella Awards") is not part of the original Globe article, and I suspect you're right about the accuracy of that site.

However, the Globe refers to a case of a man suing the makers of his Winnebago because he misunderstood the purpose of cruise control. This story appears to be associated with a hoax-like Stella Awards claim that I think is about as reliable as the Darwin Awards.

[jmthane.livejournal.com]

In fact, that one is on the True Stella Awards site under the "Hoaxes" (http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html) section.

Re: Case: Sera Sera

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

i do think it's frivolous to sue sony for inventing a movie critic. not because it doesn't really matter that they did that (it does, it was wrong), but because it's too lightweight an offense to involve the courts, IMO. it's cause for a letter to sony, and for an apology -- and i think sony did go all the way in setting things right by firing the perpetrator.

anyone who went to see a movie based on the recommendation of a critic whose name they could not have recognized as worth anything and then sues is a dipshit IMO, and trying to cover zir own gullibility about "authority". what they need is a gold-plated stapler for the "hand to head" maneuvre, not a class action lawsuit.

Re: Case: Sera Sera

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

I guess I am content to have the courts involved because I think that corporations are already far too cavalier with truth in advertising and, at this point in time, any litigation that reminds them of their responsibility is a Good Thing. Courts seem like pretty much the only power that average citizens have over corporations.

I mean: if all it costs a corporation to lie is to fire someone and apologize, then it doesn't seem like they're sufficiently dissuaded from doing so.

[alecto23.livejournal.com]

Thanks for those links, interesting reading. I had thought that the McDonalds coffee warning story was an urban myth—a great example of Americans being sue-happy, but not true. I sit corrected!

As for the Sony case, I'm of mixed minds. I think that it seems like an utterly frivolous case and that it's dangerous to set a legal precedent for giving people the right to plead victim to their own gullibility. On the other hand, it seems like a dangerous precedent to allow multinational corporations to get away with fabricating assertions in advertising. I guess I'd agree that it seems unlikely that the advertising in this case had a serious effect, but it's not to say all falsified advertising is equally dismissable.

The whole thing reminds me of a Mad magazine book of cartoons that I read (at an impressionable age!) that was called Madvertising (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0446981001/qid=1078924447/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-5046814-3916849?v=glance&s=books"). It was all about exposing the way advertising really works, including selective quotes and various other tricks of the trade. I think without having read that so early, I'd probably be sucked in a lot more than I am.