Angry Ana de Armas fans sue studios over false advertising

Film fans are up in Armas.

Two movie viewers are suing Universal Pictures after renting the movie “Yesterday,” which featured Ana de Armas in its trailer, but not in the actual film.

Defendant Universal City Pictures, LLC, tried to have the case dismissed, but a federal judge ruled on Tuesday that movie studios can indeed be sued under false advertising laws if they release deceptive movie trailers.

Plaintiffs Conor Woulfe, from Maryland, and Peter Michael Rosza, in California, each claimed to have paid $3.99 to rent the Beatles-inspired musical movie on Amazon Prime, starring Himesh Patel and Lily James, after seeing de Armas in the trailer for the romantic comedy.

But Woulfe and Rosza felt cheated nearly two hours later when the movie ended without an appearance from the Cuban-Spanish actress.

The men now claim to have been fooled by the misleading trailer, and decided to pursue a $5 million lawsuit against Universal Pictures in January.

“Yesterday” screenwriter Richard Curtis previously explained that de Armas was set to portray an added love interest for the main character, but was completely cut out of the 2019 film when producers found that test audiences disliked the love triangle plot.

Although de Armas, in a scene involving The Beatles’ song “Something,” was cut from the final film, her footage was kept in the trailer and used to promote the the movie years after its release.

The lawsuit acquired by The Post claims that the production company has continued to “deceive the public” and rely on the “world famous actress” to attract viewers using her “fame, radiance and brilliance to promote the film … because none of the ‘Yesterday’ film leads were famous.”

Universal Pictures has tried to have the suit dismissed, arguing that movie trailers are entitled to broad protection under the First Amendment as an “artistic, expressive work.”

“What is obvious about trailers generally and the ‘Yesterday’ trailer in particular: they are expressive works in their own right and may not be relegated to a class of ‘purely commercial’ speech that receives watered-down First Amendment protection,” lawyers for Universal argued in a motion reviewed by BuzzFeed.

The company also tried to reason that allowing the lawsuit to proceed would expose movie studios to “burdensome litigation anytime a viewer claimed to be disappointed with whether and how much of any person or scene they saw in the trailer was in the final film; with whether the movie fit into the kind of genre they claimed to expect; or any of an unlimited number of disappointments a viewer could claim,” Variety reported.

However, lawyers for Woulfe and Rosza fired back, claiming that the pair of plaintiffs had never seen an actor shown in the trailer for a movie that wasn’t also in the film.

“Because consumers were promised a movie with Ana de Armas by the trailer for ‘Yesterday,’ but did not receive a movie with any appearance of Ana de Armas at all, such consumers were not provided with any value for their rental or purchase,” the lawsuit read.

US District Judge Stephen Wilson issued an order rejecting Universal’s attempt to dismiss the case, insisting that false advertising claims only stand when a “significant portion” of “reasonable consumers” could be deceived.

“Universal is correct that trailers involve some creativity and editorial discretion, but this creativity does not outweigh the commercial nature of a trailer,” Wilson wrote, according to Variety. “At its core, a trailer is an advertisement designed to sell a movie by providing consumers with a preview of the movie.”

The case will now proceed to discovery and a motion for class certification to confirm the trailer as commercial speech, which is subject to California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law.

The Post has reached out to de Armas’ representation for comment.

The next hearing has been set for April 2023.