You might remember a few weeks ago when the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) was first faced with a lawsuit on the grounds that, by publishing the age of one of the listed actors, it was essentially subjecting her to discrimination.
Well now the tables have turned. The case, which was filed anonymously, has now been met with a motion to dismiss from the IMDb, if the plaintiff does not reveal herself, under the question of whether the court system should be used to protect the actor for what is claimed to be “selfish” reasoning.
“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.”
While the Screen Actor’s Guild has stated that it opposes the IMDb’s decision to publish the woman’s age, it’s ultimately up to the courts to decide whether or not the case falls under the jurisdiction of the viable reasoning for filing an anonymous suit.
According to Hollywood Reporter, anonymous suits are allowed to be filed by plaintiffs when “doing so is justified by the harm that would be inflicted on the party if he or she is revealed.” While the plaintiff may feel that she could be discriminated against due to her age, it would be exceptionally difficult to prove in court that she undeniably would be, so it will be interesting to see how this case pans out.
And your thoughts? Should the suit be dropped, or does the IMDb hold an obligation to not put anyone in a position to where they could be discriminated against?


















I agree that people should be able to choose what personal information is shown.. it's easy to dismiss this as vanity or frivolous.. but as more and more personal data is out there, and as people loose control of it.. it points to a much larger issue: how do individuals control information about them that doesn't really need to be public?
I can see that by having her age obscured, the people who hire her would just think of her age based upon appearance.. which is actually for an actress or actor, probably a good measure. Giving the specific age will plant that in producers heads. So I can see her point.
Another way to look at this: what if websites posted personal data about you.. say, something about your health? Yes.. i know there are laws that supposedly protect this (HIPPA) but what if they posted something that to others right around you seemed obvious? And what if an insurance company decided to raise your premium?
Right now, life and health insurance companies are telling the press and their investors that they are screening people in Facebook. And it's not just you under scrutiny. It's your friends. This was covered extensively in the Wall Street Journal "what they know" series a year ago. There are also finance companies that are telling users to "unfriend" anyone they are connected to in Facebook with bad credit... because when you are reviewed, it will look badly for you.
This issue of personal data and control is much larger than an actress and her age being displayed without her consent.
It's about how we allow others to show information about us, verses having control of it ourselves. I think for a civil and democratic society to work, we can't leave that up to companies, but instead need to think about giving the individual ultimate control over certain types of personal data.
So while the actress may be vain, or may be reflecting the economic realities of her profession, which i do think are real, and we may poo-poo this as silly, this is a much larger issue and actually would be a really interesting test case, given that we don't have much privacy law in the US.
Mary Hodder
Chair, Personal Data Ecosystem Consortium
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeIn a world where the same information is available from a multitude of sources - e.g. Wikipedia, twitter, Facebook, this is a waste of time. Anyone who has an interest in the age of this actress probably knows it already...
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeDrop it. I think the courts have more important issues to worry about.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeTodd Harbold Not so fast.
I agree that this particular one sounds frivolous but she does have a point; shouldn't it be up to her to decide whether she wants to disclose her age? Most website give you a choice to display that or not. Why should IMDB be the exception?
Don't get me wrong; I don't think she should win, but I do think the discussion is interesting and will have far reaching consequences no matter what the outcome will be.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like