Appeals court finds no 'Borat' fraud

By Eriq Gardner

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit against 20th Century Fox and Sacha Baron Cohen over the making of "Borat."

Several plaintiffs had claimed they were duped into appearing in the hit comedy after the filmmakers fraudulently misrepresented themselves. The plaintiffs each signed waivers but argued that they were ambiguous and limited to a "documentary-style film."

First the district court, and now the appeals court, both say that "Borat" is indeed a documentary-style film. In other words, there wasn't any misrepresentation by legal standards.

A question arose over how much information the filmmakers had to provide the plaintiffs before they signed their waivers. The appeals court found that the info provided was sufficient and that the plaintiffs couldn't claim they were fraudulently induced into signing by relying on representations. According to the ruling, "plaintiffs apparently appeared in the film without taking any steps to confirm the oral representations on which they claim to have relied, even such cost-free steps as asking to meet the 'reporter' or to learn his name." 

The release of "Borat" introduced a flood of litigation, but so far, no claims have been successful. Baron Cohen is facing litigation on other ends — most recently a $110 million lawsuit by a Palestinian individual over "Bruno" — but we have doubts about whether that will stick. A lawsuit brought by a woman who claimed she was put in a wheelchair by the infamous comedian's antics has gone nowhere. For now, mockumentary makers seem to be on solid legal footing.

Universal Claims Taped Footage Shows No Assault By Sacha Baron Cohen

By Eriq Gardner

Universal Pictures has responded to allegations made by a Los Angeles woman who claims she was severely injured by Sacha Baron Cohen during the making of "Bruno."

The studio says the lawsuit filed by Richelle Olson and her husband is "baseless" and that they have evidence that will prove to be fully vindicating. 

"Filmed footage of the full encounter, which took place more than two years ago, clearly shows that Ms. Olson was never touched or in any way assaulted by Sacha Baron Cohen or any member of the production and suffered no injury," the statement reads.

Richelle and Lance Olson filed the lawsuit on May 31 at Los Angeles Superior Court, claiming that that during the filming of "Bruno," the star "offensively touched, pushed and battered" her down to the ground. The episode happened during a melee at a bingo hall, as Cohen and plaintiff Richelle Olson wrestled over control over the microphone.

Earlier in the day, Olson attorney Kyle Madison went public for the first time, issuing his own statement that said "the actions of Mr. Cohen and those acting in concert with him have resulted in life-altering injuries to my client."

In the complaint, Olson says she was rushed to the hospital by paramedics and later diagnosed with two brain bleeds. She says she has been confined to a wheelchair and a walker since the incident.

Sacha Baron Cohen has been the subject of much litigation since his hit 2006 film, "Borat." After that film was released, a number of lawsuits were filed that claimed that producers had fraudulently duped people into appearing in the film. Those cases, resting on claims that the signed waiver didn't cover the fraud, were all unsuccessful. 

The latest "Bruno" case is grounded upon legal claims of assault and battery, and will likely focus on what cameras did and did not capture. 

Why the 'Bruno' lawsuit is a bit more serious than those 'Borat' cases

By Matthew Belloni

Another Sacha Baron Cohen movie, another round of litigation.

Today brings the first case filed by a "victim" of Universal's upcoming "Bruno." But at least from initial reports, this one's very different from the "Borat" cases filed (and later defeated by Fox) back in 2006.

Despite all the media coverage, most of the "Borat" cases were essentially filed by a bunch of people who felt duped into signing release forms (or who Cohen failed to get signatures from). An interesting legal issue, but the stakes weren't very high.

Now a woman named Richelle Olson has sued Cohen, NBC Universal and others saying the stunt comedian and his crew physically attacked her and left her crippled at a bingo hall in 2007.

According to TMZ's account of the lawsuit, Olson was told that Bruno was a celebrity and would participate in a charity bingo game she ran for the elderly in Palmdale. But when he showed up, Olson says Bruno used foul language and caused a disturbance. A struggle ensued, she eventually fell, and she says Cohen's crew beat her up to try to elicit an emotional response for the cameras.

She says she was crying uncontrollably and hit her head. At the hospital she says she was diagnosed with two brain bleeds and has been in a walker and wheelchair ever since. Pretty serious allegations. (A Universal rep told us they're not commenting on the suit.)

The studio obviously knew it was opening a can of legal worms by releasing Cohen's latest film. But it's interesting that the claims have little to do with the woman's appearance (or non-appearance--we don't even know if she's in the final cut) on screen. Fox essentially got the benefit of the publicity the "Borat" litigation added, without losing any costly or embarrassing court cases (in at least one instance, Fox went after a plaintiff for attorneys fees and won). It will be interesting to see whether Universal stands behind Cohen and fights the case or tries to extricate itself from what is essentially an assault claim.

One initial question: if the attack allegedly happened in 2007, why is the lawsuit just being filed now? Perhaps Olson has at least something in common with the "Borat" plaintiffs: they know the value of timing.

Top 5 ways reality shows can get sued

By Eriq Gardner

In theory, producing an unscripted television show should be cheap. After all, producers don't typically have to open their checkbooks to high-priced acting and writing talent. But reality TV can get extremely expensive thanks in part to the legal costs and insurance premiums that producers must pony up. Here's a look at five things that make reality TV producers very nervous:

1. Stunts: Perhaps nothing gives producers the heebee jeebees more than putting contestants through an elaborate obstacle course ala "Wipeout" or making a contestant eat worms ala "Fear Factor" or "Survivor." Producers are regularly sued for ensuing injuries. Take the woman who suffered a herniated disk after a cast member on MTV's "Jackass" launched himself like a missile into a nearby lectern. She sued. Insurance premiums can be as much as 50% higher on reality TV programs than a standard show produced in the studio, and a recent article in Insurance News indicated that reality TV producers often have a tough time covering the risks involved with big stunt shows.

2. Defamation and Invasion of Privacy: Reality shows often feature participants who haven't yet been deemed celebrities. For the purpose of law, they are known as limited-purpose public figures. They may not enjoy the same right to privacy as private citizens and may have to show malice in defamation claims, but that doesn't stop people from suing, such as the contestant on MTV's "Road Rules" who sued for character defamation. Having people sign waivers doesn't stop the litigation, as we've seen by the rash of "Borat" lawsuits. And even contestants who don't get on the show have been known to throw a legal salvo, such as the "Apprentice" reject who sued Mark Burnett after the producer allegedly said some hurtful things about him in front of the casting crew.

3. Discrimination and Retaliation: Shows that feature contests are ripe for gripes about unfair treatment. For example, Fox TV is planning a new reality series called "Someone's Gotta Go," allowing employees at a struggling company to review confidential details about their co-workers, including salary and job evaluations, before deciding who gets the axe. Fox says the show will be vetted by attorneys, but some employment lawyers have expressed concern that a show like this could invite retaliatory lawsuits from humiliated laid-off workers. Bruised egos invite legal trouble. For example, in 2001, an unsuccessful contestant on "Survivor" argued in court that the show was rigged.

4. Emotional Distress: Putting private citizens in emotionally sticky situations can also pose a challenge. On A&E's "Intervention," producers constantly straddle the line in how far to go in letting characters self-destruct. When a drug addict overdoses on camera, is it the film crew's responsibility to step in and do something? Or take MTV's predilection for "punking" people in massive "Candid Camera"-type set-ups. In 2002, a couple checked into the Hard Rock Hotel and found what appeared to be a dead human body covered in blood. Turns out it was a prank affiliated with a show called "Harassment," which later became Ashton Kutcher's hit MTV show "Punk'd." The couple sued for $20 million for "severe and extreme emotional distress."

5. Property Damage: Some reality shows have interesting characters involved on set, and it's not always predictable what they'll do. Take former Poison singer Bret Michaels of VH1's "Rock of Love." Last year, the owner of a $9 million home sued Michaels and producers of the show for breach of contract, alleging that he totally destroyed his house in the process of making the second season. 

How does Borat hope to get away with 'Bruno'?

By Eriq Gardner

After Sacha Baron Cohen's "Borat" opened to huge box office in 2007, producers were hit with a flood of lawsuits from the unsuspecting dupes who appeared in the film without full knowledge of what was really going on.

Fox, which released the film and spearheaded the defense of the suits, took a particularly aggressive stance and ended up squashing allegations they had violated rights of publicity and fraudulently induced people. In at least one case, Fox even got a judge to make the plaintiffs pay the studio's legal fees for their trouble.

Now the publicity machine is ramping up for Cohen's much anticipated follow-up, "Bruno," in which he plays a gay Austrian journalist who interviews Americans and generally makes them uncomfortable.

Given the popularity of the first film, how was Cohen able to keep the charade going for a second go-round? 

According to The Smoking Gun, Cohen raised the stakes on the project by having lawyers create shell dummy corporations and websites to help fool people into thinking the "documentary" was a legitimate enterprise.

This make us wonder: Claims of fraud are much more likely to succeed when plaintiffs can show they signed release forms under false pretenses. Is claiming affiliation with a sham company going to get producers in trouble this time?

Flash back to the "Borat" lawsuits. In the case brought by an etiquette trainer and a driver's education teacher who both claimed to have signed an inapplicable waiver, the judge ruled that the waiver was sufficient because it included language that disclaimed any representations being made, and thus, foreclosed the possibility that anybody could sue for misrepresentation. 

"Bruno" producers and the studio--this time Universal--have probably done the same thing, especially given how much litigation the first film prompted. The question is whether this will let them get away with all sorts of false affiliations.

'Borat' Gets Taste Of His Own Medicine

By Eriq Gardner

When Fox brought "Borat" into theaters, it was flooded with an avalanche of fraud and rights-of-publicity lawsuits from plaintiffs who claimed they had been duped into appearing in the faux documentary. (Here, here, and here.)

Now one clever film producer has evidently turned the tables on Sasha Baron Cohen and his gang by coming out with a film called "Carmen Meets Borat," a story about a 17-year-old Romanian girl whose plan to emigrate to Spain falls to pieces when an American film crew descends on her village to shoot the "Borat" film.

The film is premiering at a film festival in Amsterdam next week, and the website includes a detailed synopsis that even jests at the above-mentioned failed lawsuits: "When the film is released, the world press throws itself on the village and jealousy and suspicion predominate. The chaos is made complete when an American lawyer holds out the prospect of a $30 million insurance claim to the villagers."

Now the question is whether Fox will allow the "Borat" franchise to be exploited by a renegade filmmaker. And just in case any trademark lawyers at the studio haven't been following the international scene and weren't aware of the film, the makers of "Carmen Meets Borat" have taken out advertisements inviting Cohen to the premiere.

'Borat' Moviefilm Still Not Make Benefit Angry Plaintiffs

By Eriq Gardner

It's been awhile since we checked in with our favorite Kazakhstan TV reporter. Now comes word that the New York District Court has dismissed a lawsuit by several plaintiffs who sued the makers of "Borat" after allegedly being duped into agreeing to be in the film.

The plaintiffs in the case, including an etiquette trainer and a driver's education teacher, signed a waiver to appear in a "documentary-style...motion picture" intended "to reach a young adult audience by using entertaining content and formats." In their complaint, the plaintiffs argued that the waiver was ambiguous and that the term "documentary-style film" didn't describe "Borat."

U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska ruled that there is no ambiguity. The waiver contract language applies to the film and the plaintiffs can't claim they were fraudulent induced into signing the contract because the signed waiver explicitly disclaimed such an argument. (Obviously, "Borat" filmmakers saw the potential troubles ahead.)

Full decision after the jump:

Romanian Villagers Give Up Fight Against 'Borat' Producers

Posted by Matthew Heller

Joining a lengthening list of unsuccessful "Borat" plaintiffs, two Romanians have voluntarily dismissed their discrimination and fraud case against the makers of Fox's much-litigated mockumentary.

Nicolae Todorache and Spiridom Ciorebea, depicted in the film's opening scenes in a Romanian village (substituting for Kazakhstan), filed one of the earliest "Borat" suits, but did little to pursue their case before entering a voluntary dismissal last month. Perhaps they saw the writing on the wall after a judge in California shot down claims by fraternity brothers depicted in the film and another judge in New York dismissed the claims of a pedestrian who was accosted by the title character.

For those keeping score, the following "Borat" plaintiffs are still in litigation:

• Etiquette teachers Kathie Martin and Cindy Streit (refiled in New York after Alabama courts denied jurisdiction).
• Driving instructor Michael Psenicska (facing a motion to dismiss in New York).
• Pentecostal worshipper Ellen Johnston (conducting discovery in Mississippi).

Judge Cites 'Otherness' of 'Borat' in Dismissing Publicity Rights Case

Posted by Matthew Heller

U.S. District Court Judge Loretta A. Preska in Manhattan -- who has the unenviable assignment of handling all the "Borat"-related cases in that jurisdiction -- believes the hit mockumentary's humor appeals to the "childish and vulgar in its viewers." But that didn't stop her from dismissing a publicity rights case filed by a pedestrian whom title character Borat Sagdiyev chases down a Manhattan street.

The scene depicting the pursuit of Jeffrey Lemerond "is part of a series of clips showing Borat's first exposure to American culture," Preska noted in her ruling, "and in so doing, bears a relationship to the [movie's] theme of 'otherness.' As such, it falls within that broad exception [to publicity rights liability] recognized by New York courts for newsworthy items or matters of public interest."

In New York, One 'Borat' Case Falls, Three to Go

Posted by Matthew Heller

One of the four "Borat" cases assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Loretta A. Preska in Manhattan has fallen off her docket -- and two others could soon be headed in a similar direction.

Felix Cedeno, who is depicted briefly in the much-sued mockumentary as a bystander on the New York subway, dropped his suit against the producers earlier this week. He had not opposed a motion to dismiss and, according to the stipulation of dismissal, he will not receive "any payment or other consideration by Fox and/or any of the other named defendants."

In the motion to dismiss, Fox attorney Slade Metcalf of Hogan & Hartson in New York argued that Cedeno could not show violation of New York's publicity rights law because he "only appears on the screen for a mere second out of an almost 90 minute film" and

[C]ourts in New York interpreting this statute have made it crystal clear over the past century: a plaintiff has no claim under the New York statute if his picture appears in only an incidental or fleeting manner in the underlying movie, television program, or book.

Metcalf makes a similar argument in a motion to dismiss the case of two Romanian villagers, which is also pending before Preska. "[T]he use of three of four Plaintiffs’ images [in 'Borat'} is fleeting and incidental and thus does not come within the scope of [the publicity rights law]," it says.

In yet another case, Fox says Jeffrey Lemerond -- who runs away from title character Borat Sagdiyev after being accosted by him on a Manhattan street -- has no publicity rights claim because his fearful reaction to Borat has a "real relationship" to the film's theme of "everyday Americans responding to a stunning culture clash."