Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Last updated

Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al.
Washington-western.gif
Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Full case nameHuong Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. and IMDb.com, Inc.,
DecidedApril 11, 2013
Citation(s)no. 11-cv-01709, (W.D. Wash., filed Oct. 13, 2011)
no. 13-35390, (9th Cir., filed May 6, 2013)
Holding
Jury verdict; IMDb did not breach its contract with plaintiff by publishing her true date of birth
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Marsha J. Pechman
Keywords
internet privacy, breach of contract

Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al. (initially filed as Doe v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al.) is a lawsuit brought by actress Junie Hoang in October 2011 against IMDb.com and its parent company Amazon.com for revealing her true date of birth, which she said opened her up to age discrimination. In March 2013, all of her claims against Amazon and all but one of her claims against IMDb were dismissed, and in April 2013, a jury found that IMDb was not liable for the remaining claim for breach of contract; the verdict was upheld on appeal.

Contents

Lawsuit

Hoang, whose real name is Huong Hoang (Vietnamese : Hoàng Hương), is a Vietnamese-American actress. [1] She had small parts in films such as Gingerdead Man 3: Saturday Night Cleaver and Hoodrats 2: Hoodrat Warriors. [2]

In October 2011, Hoang filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) and its parent company Amazon.com, [3] alleging that IMDb had accessed her account information to obtain her true birth date (July 16, 1971), then displayed it as part of the information on her entry as an actress. Her complaint alleged that the use of her account information was wrongful and that publication of the information would cause her to suffer age discrimination in casting. [4]

Hoang's lawsuit was originally filed under the name "Jane Doe", but in December 2011, U.S. District Judge Marsha J. Pechman in Seattle dismissed the original lawsuit with leave to refile under her own name, saying the actress had no grounds to proceed with an anonymous complaint. [3] [4] On January 6, 2012, Hoang refiled, revealing her name. [3] [4]

In March 2013, Judge Pechman granted Amazon's motion for summary judgment, releasing it from the case; and IMDb's motion for summary judgment on Hoang's Washington state's Consumer Protection Act claim and emotional distress claims. [5] [6] The case went to trial on April 9, 2013 on the remaining cause of action, IMDb's alleged breach of contract, with IMDb as the sole defendant. [5] On April 11, 2013, a federal jury in Seattle rejected the breach of contract claim. [7] [8]

Appeal

In May 2013, Hoang filed a notice of appeal in the case. [9] [10] Hoang's opening brief was filed on October 30, and IMDb's answering brief was filed December 24; [11] Hoang voluntarily dismissed Amazon.com from the appeal on November 4. [12] Hoang's reply brief was filed February 3, 2014. [13]

There were two motions made to file amicus curiae briefs in support of Hoang; one by four screenwriters David Ransil, Brad Markowitz, Steven Tag Mendillo and Mark Lisson on November 20; and one by the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) and the Writers Guild of America, West (WGAW) on November 25. [11] Both motions were denied, because they did not address the ground on which Hoang had appealed. [14]

Oral argument in the case was held in Seattle on February 6, 2015. [15] [16] The Ninth Circuit panel was composed of circuit judges Carlos Bea and Mary H. Murguia, and district judge William H. Orrick III, sitting by designation. [15]

On March 27, 2015, the Ninth Circuit panel unanimously affirmed the decision in favor of IMDb. [17]

Reaction and aftermath

Two actors' unions, SAG and AFTRA, supported Hoang, saying that IMDb was "facilitating age discrimination". [18]

After the lawsuit was decided, the unions pressed the California legislature to enact legislation requiring Internet sites to remove birth dates and ages of entertainers upon their request. [19] The legislature enacted the law, Assembly Bill 1687, [20] in September 2016. [19] In February 2018, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria struck down the law as violating the First Amendment. [21] In June 2020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed Chhabria's judgement, holding that the statute was an unconstitutional content-based restriction that violated the First Amendment. [22] [23]

Related Research Articles

<i>Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.</i> 1994 copyright infringement lawsuit

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435, was a copyright infringement lawsuit in which Apple Computer, Inc. sought to prevent Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple's Lisa and Macintosh operating systems. The court ruled that, "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]...". In the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, Xerox also sued Apple alleging that Mac's GUI was heavily based on Xerox's. The district court dismissed Xerox's claims without addressing whether Apple's GUI infringed Xerox's. Apple lost all claims in the Microsoft suit except for the ruling that the trash can icon and folder icons from Hewlett-Packard's NewWave windows application were infringing. The lawsuit was filed in 1988 and lasted four years; the decision was affirmed on appeal in 1994, and Apple's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alien Tort Statute</span> US legislation

The Alien Tort Statute, also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is a section in the United States Code that gives federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits filed by foreign nationals for torts committed in violation of international law. It was first introduced by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and is one of the oldest federal laws still in effect in the U.S.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tolkien Estate</span> Legal body managing estate of J.R.R Tolkien

The Tolkien Estate is the legal body which manages the property of the English writer J. R. R. Tolkien, including the copyright for most of his works. The individual copyrights have for the most part been assigned by the estate to subsidiary entities such as the J. R. R. Tolkien Discretionary Settlement and the Tolkien charitable trust. The various holdings of the Tolkien family, including the estate, have been organized under The Tolkien Company, the directors of which were Christopher Tolkien until August 2017 and his wife Baillie Tolkien, and J. R. R. Tolkien's grandson Michael George Tolkien. The executors of the estate proper were Christopher Tolkien, who was sole literary executor, and, Cathleen Blackburn of Maier Blackburn, who has been the estate's solicitor for many years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">IMDb</span> Online media database

IMDb is an online database of information related to films, television series, podcasts, home videos, video games, and streaming content online – including cast, production crew and personal biographies, plot summaries, trivia, ratings, and fan and critical reviews. IMDb began as a fan-operated movie database on the Usenet group "rec.arts.movies" in 1990, and moved to the Web in 1993. Since 1998, it has been owned and operated by IMDb.com, Inc., a subsidiary of Amazon.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stan Lee Media</span> Defunct media company

Stan Lee Media (SLM) was an Internet-based creation, production and marketing company that was founded in 1998, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2000, and ultimately dismissed from bankruptcy in November 2006. In its early years, the company created Stan Lee branded super hero franchises for applications in all media including the standout series the 7th Portal. Its 165-man animation production studio was based in Los Angeles from 1998 to 2001. It won the 2000 Web Award for the best Entertainment Portal on the World Wide Web, but the company failed in the same year. Stan Lee himself cut ties with the company long before his death.

<i>Doe v. MySpace, Inc.</i>

Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413 (2008), is a 2008 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that MySpace was immune under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 from liability for a sexual assault of a minor that arose from posts on the MySpace platform.

<i>Doe v. Unocal Corp.</i>

Doe v. Unocal, 395 F.3d 932, opinion vacated and rehearing en banc granted, 395 F.3d 978, was a lawsuit filed against Unocal for alleged human rights violations.

<i>Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc.</i> Series of lawsuits between Mattel and MCA Records

Mattel v. MCA Records, 296 F.3d 894, was a series of lawsuits between Mattel and MCA Records that resulted from the 1997 hit single "Barbie Girl" by Danish-Norwegian group Aqua. The case was ultimately dismissed.

<i>Doe v. Holy See</i> Lawsuit against the Catholic Church

Doe v. Holy See, 557 F.3d 1066, was a lawsuit involving the sovereign immunity status of the Holy See in relation to the Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States. The threshold question of law in the case was whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act allows the Holy See, a sovereign state in international law, to be sued for acts of local Catholic clergy.

<i>Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC</i> US legal case

Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC, 755 F.3d 398, is a case in which the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the Roommates material development test for limiting immunity under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). A libel suit was pursued by Sarah Jones, formerly a high school teacher and Cincinnati Ben–Gals cheerleader, against Dirty World, LLC, operator of the celebrity gossip web site TheDirty.com, concerning two postings on TheDirty.com that Dirty World refused to remove.

John Doe VII v. Exxon Mobil Corp (09–7125) is a lawsuit filed in the United States by 11 Indonesian villagers against ExxonMobil Corporation alleging that the company is responsible for human rights violations in the oil-rich province of Aceh, Indonesia. The case has broad implications for multinational corporations doing business in other countries. Indonesian security forces committed torture, rape, and murder against the plaintiffs and their families while under contract with ExxonMobil to guard the Arun gas field during the late 1990s and early 2000s; plaintiffs claim that Exxon is responsible for these atrocities.

Susan L. Burke is an American lawyer noted for her work to reform the military system of prosecuting rape and assault and in representing plaintiffs suing the American military or military contractors, such as the Abtan v. Blackwater case. She represented former detainees of Abu Ghraib prison in a suit against interrogators and translators from CACI and Titan Corp. who were tasked with obtaining military intelligence from them during their detention. Her work was featured in the documentaries The Invisible War and Ghosts of Abu Ghraib. In 2015, the National Law Journal named Burke one of the top 75 female attorneys in the nation.

<i>Jewel v. National Security Agency</i>

Jewel v. National Security Agency, 673 F.3d 902, was a class action lawsuit argued before the District Court for the Northern District of California and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed by Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on behalf of American citizens who believed that they had been surveilled by the National Security Agency (NSA) without a warrant. The EFF alleged that the NSA's surveillance program was an "illegal and unconstitutional program of dragnet communications surveillance" and claimed violations of the Fourth Amendment.

<i>Saleh v. Bush</i>

Saleh v. Bush, 848 F.3d 880, was a class action lawsuit filed in 2013 against high-ranking members of the George W. Bush administration for their alleged involvement in premeditating and carrying out the Iraq War. In December 2014, the district court hearing the case ordered it dismissed with prejudice. The dismissal was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.

<i>Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc.</i>

Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc., 767 F.3d 894 (2014), is a 2014 ruling at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the legal liability of an Internet service provider for criminal offenses committed by its users. The ultimate ruling in the case has caused confusion over the amount of liability faced by service providers during such incidents.

Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal affairs of Donald Trump as president</span>

The following is a list of notable lawsuits involving former United States president Donald Trump. The list excludes cases that only name Trump as a legal formality in his capacity as president, such as habeas corpus requests.

<i>Karnoski v. Trump</i> Lawsuit filed on August 29, 2017

Karnoski v. Trump (2:17-cv-01297-MJP) was a lawsuit filed on August 29, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The suit, like the similar suits Jane Doe v. Trump, Stone v. Trump, and Stockman v. Trump, sought to block Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service for transgender people under the auspices of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The suit was filed on the behalf of three transgender plaintiffs, the Human Rights Campaign, and the Gender Justice League by Lambda Legal and OutServe-SLDN.

Comcast v. National Association of African-American-Owned Media, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is a United States Supreme Court case related to protections against racial discrimination in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The case relates to whether cable television operator Comcast engaged in racial discrimination in refusing to carry channels from Entertainment Studios, a minority-owned network founded by Byron Allen. In a unanimous opinion in March 2020, the Court ruled that under the Civil Rights Act, Allen was burdened to show that race was but-for the sole reason Comcast failed to enter into a contract with his network. The parties reached a settlement after the Court's decision.

Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe, 593 U. S. ___ (2021), is a United States Supreme Court decision regarding the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which provides federal courts jurisdiction over claims brought by foreign nationals for violations of international law. Consolidated with Cargill, Inc. v. Doe, the case concerned a class-action lawsuit against Nestlé USA and Cargill for aiding and abetting child slavery in Côte d’Ivoire by purchasing from cocoa producers that utilize child slave labor from Mali. The plaintiffs, who were former slave laborers in the cocoa farms, brought their claim in U.S. district court under the ATS.

References

  1. ↑ Kenneally, Tim; Chelin, Pamela (January 6, 2012). "IMDB "Jane Doe" plaintiff reveals her real name". Reuters. Retrieved March 12, 2013.
  2. ↑ "Amazon Age Lawsuit Actress Identifies Herself". Sky News. January 7, 2012. Archived from the original on May 1, 2013. Retrieved March 21, 2013.
  3. 1 2 3 Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., no. 11-cv-01709, (W.D. Wash., filed Oct. 13, 2011); retrieved from PACER, Apr. 12, 2013
  4. 1 2 3 Johnson, Gene (January 6, 2012). "Actress who sued Amazon over age IDs herself". Associated Press . Retrieved March 21, 2013.
  5. 1 2 Kennally, Tim (March 20, 2013). "Actress Junie Hoang suing IMDb.com for revealing her age". Toronto Sun. Retrieved March 21, 2013.
  6. ↑ Ciepley, Michael (March 20, 2013). "Actress's Suit Against IMDb for Publishing Her Actual Age Can Go to Trial". New York Times. Retrieved March 21, 2013.
  7. ↑ Johnson, Gene. "Wash. jury rejects claim of actress who sued IMDb". Associated Press. Retrieved April 12, 2013.
  8. ↑ "Actress age claim against IMDb rejected". BBC News. April 12, 2013. Retrieved April 12, 2013.
  9. ↑ Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al no. 11-cv-01709, W.D. Wash., Notice of Appeal (May 5, 2013), retrieved from PACER, August 8, 2013.
  10. ↑ Kenneally, Tim (May 8, 2013). "'Jane Doe' actress appeals IMDb verdict". Global Post. Thomson Reuters. Archived from the original on September 12, 2013. Retrieved August 8, 2013.
  11. 1 2 Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al, no. 13-35390, 9th Cir., docket report, retrieved from PACER, August 25, 2014.
  12. ↑ Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al, no. 13-35390, 9th Cir., order (November 4, 2013), retrieved from PACER, December 30, 2013.
  13. ↑ Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al, no. 13-35390, 9th Cir., clerk order (February 4, 2014), retrieved from PACER, April 14, 2014.
  14. ↑ Huong Hoang v. IMDb.com, Inc. no. 13-35390 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2015) at 4 n.1
  15. 1 2 "Calendar for Seattle, Washington". United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Retrieved November 24, 2014.
  16. ↑ Gardner, Eriq (February 6, 2015). "Appeals Court Hears the Scary Things That Can Happen to Actors Who Lie to IMDb". Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved February 10, 2015.
  17. ↑ Gardner, Eriq (March 27, 2015). "IMDb Preserves Legal Win Over Revelation of Actress' Age". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved March 27, 2015.
  18. ↑ "Acting unions criticise IMDb in age row". BBC News. October 28, 2011. Retrieved March 21, 2013.
  19. 1 2 Parker, Ryan; Handel, Jonathan (September 24, 2016). "California Enacts Law Requiring IMDb to Remove Actor Ages on Request". Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved November 11, 2016.
  20. ↑ Cal. A.B. 1687, enacted Sep. 24, 2016
  21. ↑ Gardner, Eriq (February 20, 2018). "California's IMDb Age Censorship Law Declared Unconstitutional". Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved February 23, 2018.
  22. ↑ Volokh, Eugene (June 21, 2020). "Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Statute Limiting IMDb's Display of Actor Ages". The Volokh Conspiracy . Reason. Retrieved July 27, 2020.
  23. ↑ IMDb.com v. Becerra, et al. , nos. 18-15463, 18-15469 (9th Cir. June 19, 2020).

In the Northern District for California

In the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.