IMDB doesn’t sound too sorry about revealing that chick’s age

11.16.11 8 years ago 18 Comments

About a month ago, an unnamed actress anonymously sued IMDB for revealing her age, which she says they obtained through her credit card information and posted without her permission, saying revealing their age without permission puts actresses pushing 40 at a disadvantage in trying to get roles if they can pass for younger. Which is true, I’m sure it sucks trying to live long enough for your ironic, Betty White fame. Anyway, this week, IMDB fired back, and it was basically the legal and public statement equivalent of a dismissive wanking motion. IMDB AIN’T CARE!, owner of iMDb, believes it knows the identity of this woman, and it tells a Washington federal court 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. Now a judge is being asked to dismiss the lawsuit so as to not perpetuate a fraud on the public.
In its motion to dismiss filed last week and obtained by THR, the company questions whether the judicial system should be used to help an actress hide her 40 years of age. According to IMDb:
“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.”
The judge is being asked to dismiss the case because the original lawsuit was an alleged violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a). IMDb believes the plaintiff has no proper reason to file her case anonymously, so the company is attempting to get the case dismissed if the woman doesn’t step forward to reveal herself. [THR]

Look, no one’s arguing that aging actresses aren’t all dangerous amoral sociopaths who should be locked up as a preventative measure like the wolfman. I mean, I think we’ve all seen the Real Housewives. But IMDB’s whole statement just seems like a diversionary tactic. You either revealed someone’s age without her permission or you didn’t. If it was naked pictures, I could see, those are for everyone, but otherwise that’s just wrong.

Around The Web