Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Judge: Film Product Placement Not Putting Lives at Risk
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: December 29, 2016
Key Contacts
Back
Product placement is a regular part of entertainment, so much so that viewers often dismiss brand-name items they see every day.
Of course, the film industry has drawn quite a bit of criticism over its product placement practices, particularly when it comes to cigarettes, alcohol and other harmful substances. In fact, activist Timothy Forsyth, who resides in the San Francisco Bay area, recently took several film industry institutions to court over how they used smoking in movies. If successful, the suit would have been one the largest changes to entertainment law in recent years.
Argument for more stringent rating standards
According to Entertainment Law Digest, Forsyth sued the Motion Picture Association of America, the National Association of Theatre Owners and six big film studios earlier this year. Forsyth hoped to enact an injunction that would require the MPAA to assign films “R” ratings for films that depicted actors smoking cigarettes.
On Oct. 28, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg heard Forsyth’s argument that neglecting to protect young viewers from images of tobacco consumption increases the likelihood of them picking up the habit later in life, according to Courthouse News. Forsyth cited research from the World Health Organization and American Medical Association, both of which advised the film industry eliminate smoking in films produced for young audiences.
Forsyth’s attorney David Schachman argued against film industry attorneys Kelly Klaus and Roger Myers, who cited conclusions regarding free speech from the Supreme Court.
“This is not a case where plaintiff (sic) is trying to hold defendants liable for something said; rather something unsaid,” said Klaus, as quoted in Courthouse News. “They are forcing defendants to express opinions they want us to express.”
The crux of Klaus’s statements was that films aren’t actively promoting cigarettes. For example, it’s not as if the characters within the types of films Forsyth and Schachman criticized consistently say “you should buy cigarettes” or something of that ilk.
Judge dismisses the case
In the Oct. 28 hearing, Seeborg noted that PG-13 guidelines state “some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.” From his perspective, this statement did not intentionally mislead viewers into thinking smoking was safe.
On Nov. 10, Seeborg dismissed the suit, maintaining that film ratings are regarded as expressions of free speech, as well as protected from lawsuits under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.
“[The Classification and Rating Administration] holds First Amendment rights to express its opinions that are reflected in the ratings system,” said Seeborg, as quoted by Entertainment Law Digest. “Even focusing on the certification marks alone, that right precludes the basic relief Forsyth seeks in this action – forcing CARA to express different or additional opinions.”
Seeborg noted that, due to the deficiencies in Forsyth’s case – the main one being that he claims the MPAA’s rating system intentionally misleads consumers – it’s unlikely the plaintiff would be able amend his claim to pursue further action.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Anthony Caruso, at 201-806-3364.
- Industries: Entertainment & Media
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Judge: Film Product Placement Not Putting Lives at Risk
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Product placement is a regular part of entertainment, so much so that viewers often dismiss brand-name items they see every day.
Of course, the film industry has drawn quite a bit of criticism over its product placement practices, particularly when it comes to cigarettes, alcohol and other harmful substances. In fact, activist Timothy Forsyth, who resides in the San Francisco Bay area, recently took several film industry institutions to court over how they used smoking in movies. If successful, the suit would have been one the largest changes to entertainment law in recent years.
Argument for more stringent rating standards
According to Entertainment Law Digest, Forsyth sued the Motion Picture Association of America, the National Association of Theatre Owners and six big film studios earlier this year. Forsyth hoped to enact an injunction that would require the MPAA to assign films “R” ratings for films that depicted actors smoking cigarettes.
On Oct. 28, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg heard Forsyth’s argument that neglecting to protect young viewers from images of tobacco consumption increases the likelihood of them picking up the habit later in life, according to Courthouse News. Forsyth cited research from the World Health Organization and American Medical Association, both of which advised the film industry eliminate smoking in films produced for young audiences.
Forsyth’s attorney David Schachman argued against film industry attorneys Kelly Klaus and Roger Myers, who cited conclusions regarding free speech from the Supreme Court.
“This is not a case where plaintiff (sic) is trying to hold defendants liable for something said; rather something unsaid,” said Klaus, as quoted in Courthouse News. “They are forcing defendants to express opinions they want us to express.”
The crux of Klaus’s statements was that films aren’t actively promoting cigarettes. For example, it’s not as if the characters within the types of films Forsyth and Schachman criticized consistently say “you should buy cigarettes” or something of that ilk.
Judge dismisses the case
In the Oct. 28 hearing, Seeborg noted that PG-13 guidelines state “some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.” From his perspective, this statement did not intentionally mislead viewers into thinking smoking was safe.
On Nov. 10, Seeborg dismissed the suit, maintaining that film ratings are regarded as expressions of free speech, as well as protected from lawsuits under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.
“[The Classification and Rating Administration] holds First Amendment rights to express its opinions that are reflected in the ratings system,” said Seeborg, as quoted by Entertainment Law Digest. “Even focusing on the certification marks alone, that right precludes the basic relief Forsyth seeks in this action – forcing CARA to express different or additional opinions.”
Seeborg noted that, due to the deficiencies in Forsyth’s case – the main one being that he claims the MPAA’s rating system intentionally misleads consumers – it’s unlikely the plaintiff would be able amend his claim to pursue further action.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Anthony Caruso, at 201-806-3364.