Two fans of Cuban-Spanish actress Ana de Armas have filed a federal class-action lawsuit on Friday alleging they were duped into renting the 2019 film 'Yesterday' because the actor had appeared in the trailer.
According to Variety, Conor Woulfe of Maryland, and Peter Michael Rosza of San Diego County, California, have said they each paid USD 3.99 to rent the movie on Amazon Prime, only to discover that de Armas was removed from the final cut of the film.
The suit accuses Universal of engaging in deceptive marketing and seeks to recoup at least USD 5 million on behalf of affected consumers.
The lawsuit states, "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."
'Yesterday' stars Himesh Patel as Jack Malik, a singer-songwriter who, through a supernatural occurrence, is the only person on Earth who remembers the Beatles. Malik rockets to stardom by claiming credit for their songs.
De Armas was set to appear as Roxane, a love interest who is introduced to Malik on the set of James Corden's talk show. Malik was to serenade her with a rendition of George Harrison's song 'Something'. But the scenes with de Armas' character were later removed.
Richard Curtis, the screenwriter, explained to an entertainment news outlet that audiences did not like the idea of Malik straying from his primary love interest in the film, portrayed by Lily James.
"That was a very traumatic cut because she was brilliant in it. I mean really radiant. You know, it's one of those things where it's some of our favourite scenes from the film, but we had to cut them for the sake of the whole," Curtis told the outlet.
The suit describes de Armas as a "talented, successful, and famous actress," and notes her roles in 'Blade Runner 2049', 'Knives Out' and 'No Time to Die'.
The suit bears a resemblance to a complaint involving the film 'Drive' that was filed in Michigan in 2011. In that case, the plaintiff alleged that the trailer made it appear that the film would be a "high-speed action-driving film," and she was not prepared for the film's slow-paced interpersonal drama punctuated with graphic violence.
An appeals court had dismissed that case on several grounds, including that the trailer was not deceptive. The defendants in that case also argued that the film and the trailer were protected by the First Amendment, as per Variety.
( With inputs from ANI )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor