I don’t have to find any examples “of this judge being an anti-abortion crusader” because no one has said he’s any kind of “crusader,” that’s your strawman you built, because as always you’re fundamentally incapable of grappling with what people are actually arguing. What they are arguing is he’s an anti-abortion…

Why do I have to find another ruling on abortion rights? None of the actual statements you are arguing against said he had more than one ruling targeting abortion rights, nor did anything you said indicate that your opinion is based solely on him having only one opinion concerning abortion rights.  Learn to read.…

“I never claimed to be Jewish. I am Catholic. Because I learned my maternal family had a Jewish background I said I was ‘Jew-ish.’”

It’s not the only thing they cite.  If you had bothered to read this article, you’d know that.

Look, it’s the guy who knows better than 50 law professors.

Yes, there is. A middle aged man who will not dare anyone under 25 is funny.  You should have asked Santa for a sense of humor, I guess. Later, narc. 

Important enough that you know it’s not going to get cut! Do you honestly think it’s that hard to find four minutes of compelling footage that’s not going to get cut and that doesn’t spoil the film? I don’t think the choice was between including this footage and not having a trailer that didn’t spoil the film. If…

My point is, they did. Sometimes, people are pretty sure and they’re wrong.

If they have such a good idea, why did they spend more money casting a known name when they could have hired a cheaper actress? So many movies are built in the editing room.

What is it I’ve said that is so stupid?

I mean, it’s a complaint, it is standard practice to stick a big number as potential damages, in part to avoid prejudicing the amount they can actually receive later. Who knows, they might get into discovery and find out there was huge anticipation among the massive De Armas Army for her plot line and appearance in…

Tell me the problem with making a mold joke at the expense of Leo’s dating habits?

Advertisers get away with a lot of shit with pretty inadequate disclaimers.

Well, companies possibly being held accountable for false advertising is easily the worst thing I’ve experienced in a long time, so I’m right there with you. I’m taking to the streets to stop this garbage. 

LOL. But in all seriousness, it’s a class action, so if they end up prevailing it will be more like “100,000 people get their $3.99 back.”

Honestly, probably in a case like that, the argument about trailers being expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment, in large part because I think courts are going to be hesitant to get into arguments like “The trailer promised a Hitchcock-esque psychological suspense thriller, but Plaintiff was disappointed…

Whether it was reasonable of them to rent the movie expecting to see De Armas in reliance on the trailers will be fleshed out based on the facts developed in discovery, and presented at trial. That is what litigation is for. This ruling just says that the case can go forward because the facts in the complaint, if…

I don’t have a particularly strong opinion about this particular case, but just because companies have been doing something for a long time doesn’t mean that practice should be blessed by a court.

I think the size of the damages are because it’s a class action, which means they are seeking damages on behalf of the entire potential class of people who were duped into renting the movie. I don’t think the plaintiffs are claiming they were actually damaged to the tune of $5 million, but that many thousands of…

It’s not frivolous. They spent money they otherwise wouldn’t have because a company misled them about the nature of the product. Any competent legal system would provide them with compensation in that circumstance.