General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsActress, 40, Makes a Federal Case of Her Age
Actress, 40, Makes a Federal Case of Her Age
(CN) - A formerly anonymous actress who sued Amazon.com and its Internet Movie Database last year for revealing her age has identified herself, and her age, in an amended federal complaint.
Huong Hoang, 40, of Texas, goes by the stage name of Junie Hoang. She has appeared in the films "I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant," "My Big Phat Hip Hop Family," "Gingerdead Man 3: Saturday Night Cleaver," and others.
She sued Amazon last year, seeking several millions of dollars in Seattle Federal Court, claiming the company used her personal and credit card information without her consent to cross-reference public records and other sources to learn her age and post it on her profile.
That caused her to lose work, she says in her amended complaint, "because lesser-known forty-year-old actresses are not in demand in the entertainment business." She adds that "because plaintiff looks so much younger than her actual age indicates, plaintiff has experienced rejection in the industry for each 'forty-year-old' role for which she has interviewed because she does not and cannot physically portray the role of a forty-year-old woman."
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/09/42860.htm
barbtries
(28,787 posts)if she looks much younger but is losing jobs because now the casting people know how old she is and don't call, and then the casting people call her up for a 40 something gig and reject her because she looks too young.
my first thought was it's a vanity thing, but for this person it sounds as if it could legitimately be money in the bank.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)She got offers to play "witches."
It's even true about writers - there were some writers who worked on M.A.S.H. who wouldn't put that on their resume in the 90's and later because they were afraid that they would be considered too old to write for new movies and television series.
Ron Obvious
(6,261 posts)How is the truth not an absolute defence here? She's got my sympathies and I'm sure she's losing work over this, but I'd still say this is a frivolous lawsuit
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)It appears her case rests upon how they obtained the information. If they got it "illegally", then she has a case. However, to receive any compensation, she has to demonstrate "damage". So she would sue for the illegal act (the method by which the info was obtained) and then establish damage by the effect of releasing data they obtained illegally.
unblock
(52,183 posts)actors (even lesser-known ones) voluntarily give up certain expectations of privacy as part of the profession, so the standards for privacy are higher. a court could easily find that any actor bent on keeping such information private should have known to avoid handing over information that could be used to cross-reference public information. in fact, a court could easily find that the fact that the information is public in the first place is enough to let the defendants off the hook, even if the identification of the relevant public information was made easier by the misuse of confidential data.
they didn't disclose anything that was actually confidential. the information they actually disclosed was a matter of public record.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Statutory Consumer Protection style privacy rights; 4) Violation of a Consumer Protection statute.
So the issue of a celeb's relative right to privacy isn't one of the legal questions at play, imo.
unblock
(52,183 posts)i wonder also if the fact that the defendants actions (if not their methods) are not obviously wrong and damaging wouldn't enter into a decision.
revealing an actor's age is not the sort of thing you would ordinarily think of tortious (in the absence of some indication from the actor that hey, i'm trying to keep this a secret).
oddly enough, had they said the actor was 500 years old and pregnant with elvis presley's three-headed martian twins, that would have been clearly protected. but the correct age is a question....
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)But as you'll note, the "truth" doesn't enter into the argument on either side. It settles upon whether the information was derived "legally". If it was, there is going to be very little case at all.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)The negative press about imdb/etc may cause them to settle it so that it goes away.
Lance_Boyle
(5,559 posts)This is a case of a pretty much failed actress going after deep pockets instead of those actually wronging her. Maybe she'll at least get enough publicity out of the suit (which she'll lose) to make it onto one of the "D-List" reality shows.
Darth_Kitten
(14,192 posts)There is a very real and stupid bias against actresses aged 35-50. It is indeed harder to find work. Every person should be judged for their talent not on some perception on what a person of a certain age has to look like.
I hope she kicks ass.
savalez
(3,517 posts)Are you saying that the role of a 45 year old lawyer, for example, is going to someone under 35?
rocktivity
(44,573 posts)That's quite a "body" of work.
She's too young-looking to get older roles, but too old in fact to get younger roles? Does it REALLY matter that much when you're just an extra?
rocktivity
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)When an actress's agent is applying for a part for her and her age is not revealed, they know that she is hiding her age, and they know the reason why she is hiding her age.
dsc
(52,155 posts)I am 44 and lets just say I don't look anywhere near that good.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)sucks that she can't break into higher grade films, but that's where she's at......gotta earn your money somehow.
It IS true that actresses are in big trouble once they hit "matronly" age, whether they're big box office or D-movie. She's trying to preserve her earning power.
Can't blame her.
Nice movie roles, huh?
LiberalFighter
(50,856 posts)wouldn't they be able to guess what their likely age would be? She's appeared in various productions since 1992. That is 19 years.
Why would producers go solely on the age of an actress for a part? Isn't it a matter of what they appear to be and whether they fit the part?
Darth_Kitten
(14,192 posts)marybourg
(12,611 posts)"publicity stunt".
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)age and appearance are EVERYTHING for women. If Amazon didn't have permission to print personal information, or obtained it from a non-public source, they should pay for the damage done to her career.
OTOH, I don't know if I would sue if I were her. There's something to be said for accepting the reality of one's own age and dealing with it.
It's complicated.
rocktivity
(44,573 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 15, 2012, 10:17 PM - Edit history (1)
They're taking work away from her, too, just by existing! Wouldn't her case have a lot more merit if she included them as co-defendants? Oh, and throw in the all those mean old casting directors, too. Cue the DU "Cry Me A River" String Quartet!rocktivity