It has been a controversial case from the beginning — an actress suing IMDb for posting her actual date of birth and claiming that it has hurt her chances of getting roles because she looks significantly younger than her true age — with people falling on both sides of the fence.
Two weeks later the Screen Actors Guild and AFTRA jumped in the fray, supporting the actress against Amazon (which owns IMDb). But nearly a month later the response of Amazon has come out and boy, it’s a bit heavy.
First, Amazon claims that it is pretty sure of the unnamed woman’s identity, and claims that if it is the actress it guesses she is that “before she filed the lawsuit, she first tried to get the service to post a false birthdate so she could fool potential Hollywood employers into thinking she was younger than she actually is.”
The company calls this an act of fraud, and adds, “Truth and justice are philosophical pillars of this Court. The perpetuation of fraud, even for an actor’s career, is inconsistent with these principals. Plaintiff’s attempt to manipulate the federal court system so she can censor IMDb’s display of her birth date and pretend to the world that she is not 40 years old is selfish, contrary to the public interest and a frivolous abuse of this Court’s resources.” As a result, IMDb claims it is actually protecting the entertainment industry in refusing to allow the woman to “more easily deceive the public and prospective employers about her age and potentially be considered for more roles.” Them’s fighting words! Nonetheless, IMDb admits that it isn’t 100% certain on her identity, and has asked the court to reveal her name because of the difficulty of preparing a case with an anonymous plaintiff. If the plaintiff won’t reveal her identity, Amazon seeks a dismissal. Considering few lawsuits with anonymous plaintiffs end up moving forward, it’s likely we’ll learn the woman’s name or she’ll drop the case.
We had a lot of comments on our first report of the story, so what are your views on the latest developments? Who’s in the right here, and do you think our unnamed actress should be allowed to remain anonymous?