A judge has thrown out a US lawsuit brought by fans of Ana de Armas after the actress did not appear in Danny Boyle’s Beatles-themed film, Yesterday.
Conor Woulfe and Peter Michael Rosza accused Universal Pictures of false advertising and said they were “deceived” twice, after de Armas appeared in a trailer for the film, but not the full feature.
Starring Himesh Patel and Lily James, Yesterday follows failed musician Jack, who hits his head during a black-out, and wakes up to a world that does not know The Beatles.
Taking this opportunity, Jack adopts The Beatles’ songs as his own, becoming famous.
A 2019 trailer for the film shows a brief clip in which Jack appears on an episode of James Corden’s The Late Late Show, alongside de Armas – though the actress does not speak.
Woulfe and Rosza said they would not have rented the movie had they known that de Armas would not appear in the actual movie.
“Plaintiffs claim to have watched the trailer on Amazon’s internet movie streaming service,” court documents obtained by the PA news agency stated.
“Persuaded by the movie trailer, plaintiffs rented the movie on Amazon, expecting de Armas to appear in the movie, and were disappointed to discover that de Armas and the segment were not in the movie.
“Plaintiffs allege that they would not have rented the movie had they known that Ana de Armas would not appear in the actual movie.
“Plaintiffs further allege that they had never seen a trailer that featured an actor or actress that didn’t also appear in the film being advertised.”
In a later amended complaint, the lawsuit stated that Woulfe also paid to watch Yesterday on Google Play, as Google search results had listed de Armas as a cast member.
“Based upon this information, plaintiff Woulfe believed that de Armas would be in the movie and paid again to watch Yesterday.
“De Armas was not featured in the movie. Thus, plaintiff claims to have been deceived again.”
In his order, filed on Monday, judge Stephen Wilson noted that Woulfe and Rosza had amended their complaint three times since first bringing the lawsuit in 2022.
“In each prior dismissal, the court has clearly delineated the pitfalls of the complaint and allowed successive amendments,” he wrote.
“However, it now appears to the court that further amendments would be a futility.
“Accordingly, dismissal is without leave to amend. This is the third time that plaintiff has amended their complaint, and it shall be the last.”
