a true story of a false advertising claim based on a “true story”

Incarcerated Entertainment, LLC v. Warner Bros. Pictures,
No. 16-cv-1302 (M.D. Fla. May 10, 2017)
Plaintiff alleged that it owned the rights to the life story
of Efraim Diveroli and sued Warner for false advertising and unfair competition,
based on Warner’s promotion of the movie War Dogs as the “true story” of Diveroli’s
path to becoming an international arms dealer. At 18, Diveroli allegedly
started a small business specializing in arms,  ammunition trading, and bidding on U.S.
Government defense contracts, and was awarded a $298 million contract to
support the United States’ war effort in Afghanistan. At  age 22, Diveroli was indicted by a federal
grand jury in Miami for his company’s violation of arms embargos and ultimately
accepted a four-year plea deal. Guy Lawson wrote an article in Rolling Stone, The Stoner Arms Dealers:
How Two American Kids Became Big-Time Weapons Traders, featuring accounts by
both Diveroli and one of his employees Packouz. Lawson optioned the movie
rights for the article to Warner and later expanded the article into a book,
Arms and the Dudes.  (Well played!) Diveroli
marketed his own manuscript, Once a Gun
, and his business partner contacted a number of producers and
studios, including Warner, which declined to pursue a consulting arrangement
with Diveroli but retained Packouz as a consultant and enlisted Guy Lawson as a
The complaint alleged that Warner grossed more than $85
million by promoting War Dogs as Diveroli’s “true story” when it was not the
true story, shutting the plaintiff out of the marketplace because consumers
would purchase a ticket to War Dogs
instead of buying Diveroli’s memoir, Once
a Gun Runner
.  Star Jonah Hill, for
example, claimed of the movie that “it’s all true,” while another promoter told
interviewers “these are real people,” and another explained that “we certainly
tried to follow what happened as closely as possible I think. If you know the
story at all, we pretty much stick to the facts as much as we can.”
The court, perhaps surprisingly, found that the challenged
statements were “commercial speech.”  The
statements were used for promotional purposes, referring to a specific product,
and with an alleged economic motivation: Warner knew that representing the
story as “true” would induce consumers to see the movie. The court rejected Warner’s
argument that the promotions were “intertwined” with non-commercial speech, including political and artistic
commentary, and were protected because they related to a movie, which is a
protected expressive work.  But movies “are
also sold in the commercial marketplace like other more utilitarian products,
making the danger of consumer deception a legitimate concern that warrants
some government regulation.” Rogers v.
The intertwining theory couldn’t be resolved on a motion to
dismiss.  Rogers typically applies only to titles or other expressive works,
not to ads, e.g., Facenda (a “making
of” documentary about a  videogame whose
aim was to promote another creative work).  The challenged movie trailers, social media
posts, and interviews could be subject to Facenda
Warner argues that “based on a true story” couldn’t be
actionable because it conveys that the movie “is obviously fictionalized in part.”
There was no such clear-cut rule; the entire trailer in context included a
realistic news report by Wolf Blitzer, a well-known CNN anchor, and the entire
ad has to be considered.  As for
interviews with principals, the question whether they, in their full context,
falsely or misleadingly portrayed War Dogs as a true story called for a
fact-intensive inquiry that couldn’t be done on a motion to dismiss. 
The complaint also plausibly alleged that statements by
Larson and Packouz were made as agents of Warner. Lawson was a producer of the
movie, and Packouz was retained as a consultant and had a cameo in the movie.  An agency relationship with Warner could be
plausibly inferred.  Warner argued that
their statements were opinion or puffery.  Lawson stated on his Facebook page that War
Dogs was “amazingly close to the real truth of the story” and that War Dogs was
inspired by his own book. A reasonable person could infer that Lawson knew the
true story and his characterization of War Dogs “fairly implie[d] a factual
basis.” Likewise, because Packouz identified himself as the subject of the movie, his statement
that “this is exactly how it happened” at least arguably implied a factual
Warner argued that plaintiff didn’t properly allege
deception, but no factual evidence of consumer deception is required at the
pleading stage. As to materiality, plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to
support an inference that the truthfulness of War Dogs was an “inherent quality
or characteristic,” alleging that consumers are drawn to true stories and that
a test screening for War Dogs revealed that one of the main things people liked
was that it was based on a real story. Plus, because plaintiff wasn’t alleging
that scenes from the movie itself  were
false or misleading, the accuracy of the movie wasn’t relevant to the issue of materiality.
Warner finally challenged standing under Lexmark
Plaintiff alleged that it was a direct victim of Warner’s advertising because
War Dogs diverted book sales from it. Thus, the plaintiff plausibly alleged
that its injuries “flowed directly” from Warner’s advertising.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/2qe1Lwh

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s