Judge Agrees Consumers Can Sue Over Misleading Movie Trailers

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

"Can" does not mean these suits have any chance of success. The ruling is just that they can proceed. I'd be shocked if anything happens. It's also worth noting that even if someone won a case the damages would only amount to the price of a movie ticket.  (Unless a person can argue and prove that seeing a movie that wasn't like what the trailer implied caused them such trauma that actually had to seek therapy or something.)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

BTW this isn't entirely new because I recall hearing about a case in the 90s in a list of something like "most amusing lawsuits"...basically a guy rented a porn video that had a certain "adult actress" prominently on the cover and implied she was the star...but she really only appeared in the film for like 5 minutes out of over an hour. The guy filed a lawsuit against the production company for the cost of the rental and an additional couple hundred thousand for "emotional distress", also the fact that this incident made him reluctant to rent porn videos in the future without stress so damages for that. The case was allowed to proceed but he did not win, and a key piece of info brought up in the trial was that he made no attempt to negotiate with the video rental store about it since in cases in the past they had allowed customers to exchange the video if returned same day for a different rental at no additional cost.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I remember the trailer for the 2000s movie Nim's Island implying that the plot of the movie was something totally different from what it actually was. No idea why that one sticks out in my mind.

What was it actually like?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That trailer is weird to me to watch today by the way, just because of how narration-driven it is (although it's from 2008, movie trailer narration was in the process of being phased out then although it wasn't gone completely, and was more common in kids' movies like that), it feels almost kind of low-brow in how the narrator has to explain the plot. In a modern trailer style it would've been implied probably more effectively. That's actually why I think modern trailers are better, they fit the "show, don't tell" rule better.

Although it's noted that trailers today often do have narration, it's just being narrated by a character in the movie. Even that works because their words from the film need to be found properly and placed into the trailer.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I remember the trailer for the 2000s movie Nim's Island implying that the plot of the movie was something totally different from what it actually was. No idea why that one sticks out in my mind.

What was it actually like?

I think I was thinking of this trailer:

This trailer kind of implies that Alex (Jodie Foster's character) shows up and then the father disappears, when in fact it's the other way around: he disappears and then she shows up (IIRC to help look for him).

Kind of a weird (but enjoyable enough) movie though. They refer to a typhoon as a "monsoon" at one point and it's never really explained how they have Internet and mail on the island.

Yeah that trailer doesn't even explain who Jodie Foster's character is which seems pretty important based on the first trailer.

I guess satellite internet was still very available in 2008 although quite expensive.