
If you saw Avatar, Sherlock Holmes or Up in the Air this weekend, you also may have heard a little bit about Richard Singer, a small business owner in Bay City, Michigan who says he fell victim to a bogus lawsuit.
It seems like a friendly, well-produced public service announcement detailing the "Faces of Lawsuit Abuse" with a focus on small business. But it's a bit strange to see a commercial with a political message in between traditional pre-movie programming of Coca-Cola ads and spots pushing new television shows.
"America needs more jobs, not more lawsuits," is the tag line after Singer tells his story.
The four-minute video is airing in the pre-trailer commercial reel in movie theaters in Washington, D.C., Albany, Denver, Orlando and Tampa Bay, Florida and in Baton Rouge. It's part of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform, which spent $4.2 million from June through September.
The Chamber is a major player, spending nearly $39 million lobbying Congress and government agencies in the third quarter of this year alone. Representing corporations both large and small, the Chamber has a goal of making it harder for people to sue their clients.
The campaign is an affiliate of the chamber, said spokesman Mark Szymanski.
The Institute began running ads on television and radio two years ago, but has made a real push to captive audiences in movie theaters.
Szymanski told TPMDC there are 17 stories from small business owners who were "targeted by abusive lawsuits."
He said they are the first public advocacy group to put the ads in theaters, a push they started in limited run over the summer and have since expanded. It is now running on every screen before every flick in D.C., he said.
Szymanski would not disclose the cost of the campaign but said it is funded through chamber membership and individual businesses.
Tort reform and frivolous lawsuits have been targets of the chamber for years. The campaign is designed to raise awareness - and tie lawsuits into timely issue of jobs - and not geared toward specific legislation.
The "kills jobs" line is a frequent one for the chamber, which funded a study last month to show health care reform would cost the U.S. jobs.
They also have had less traditional campaigns this year.
Watch the pre-theater commercial:
Late Update: Ray De Lorenzi, a spokesman for the American Association for Justice (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America), writes in to criticize the campaign.
Here's De Lorenzi's (topical) statement:
"The Chamber's long terms goals are clear - get rid of the world's best justice system and leave Americans injured by corporate misconduct with absolutely no recourse. While the Chamber doesn't want everyday Americans to use the legal system, they are actually one of the biggest lawsuit-filers in Washington; except in their case, the Chamber sues on behalf of Wall Street banks, oil companies, and lead paint manufacturers. Given that the Chamber had feature roles in AIG, the subprime industry, Enron, and the banking crisis, they've earned an Oscar for causing the financial meltdown and creating an environment of less oversight and accountability."
GayIthacan
December 30, 2009 8:53 AM
Any theater that ran that before a movie would see me immediately head for the exit and demand LOUDLY a full refund.
If they want to get involve din politics, they have seen the last dollar from me. And I would proclaim that LOUDLY on my way out with my $10.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
realist
December 30, 2009 9:04 AM
Exactly. You couldn't pay me to stay once that filth came on the screen. And filth is what it is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
December 30, 2009 9:13 AM in reply to realist
Excuse me, while I wouldn't have pursued the issue in this manner, what exactly makes this "filth"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
December 30, 2009 1:52 PM in reply to shooter242
I suppose one could argue that the one-sidedness and misrepresentation are dirty, and thus filthy.
Or that it's bullshit, and thus dirty/filthy.
I'm kind of with you insofar as thinking "filth" is a term I wouldn't have used.
But I am on board with not wanting to see paid political advertising in a venue in which I have paid my hard-earned money for entry.
If there's no opt-out, or if the individual theater, theater company, or other element of the chain from camera to screen has been pressured into selling that time to that party, get it the hell out of my face.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
December 30, 2009 2:06 PM in reply to kenga
Co-sign. I would call it filth though. The lie about alleged lawsuit abuse is outrageous. It is just a redherring to keep the rich, richer and prevent any accountability for corporate abuses. For every alleged bogus lawsuit, there are thousands of suits against insurance carriers for saying screw you or big corporations for killing people with defective products. It is an utter outrage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
patrickd
December 30, 2009 9:11 AM
What is this post complaining about, the content or the venue? I'm old enough to remember when there weren't any ads in movie theaters, save perhaps for a nudge to visit the concession stand. But now that they are there, I don't much care who purchases them. As for the content, what, exactly is your complaint? Have you any figures on the amount spent by Trial Lawyers to block tort reform?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GayIthacan
December 30, 2009 9:15 AM in reply to patrickd
Congratulations on missing the point entirely. [eyeroll]
I don't give a flying fuck what the CONTENT is. I don't want political commercials inundating the movie theater I am paying money to watch a MOVIE.
I don;t care if it is funded by the Chamber of Commerce, GLADD, or NOW.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 30, 2009 9:12 AM
I can't even get the ad to play.
This blaming the lawyers is nothing new. I have dealt with that stigma all of my working life. There are plenty of scum bag lawyers who would sue anyone for anything and lawyers charge too much money, but I'd be willing to bet each and everyone of these guys would be the first to seek a lawyer out if they wanted to sue someone. Hipocrisy abounds.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dennis M
December 30, 2009 9:16 AM
In-theater commercials are one of the least effective forms of advertising, ranking somewhere near bus stop bench signs and matchbook covers.
But shouldn't the Chamber of Commerce be up on what works and what dosn't work in business? Apparently not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bloggin
December 30, 2009 9:19 AM
And the movie industry pretends it can't understand why less and less people are willing to pay $7 to $10 per person for a movie when they are forced to watch lawyer propaganda first. As if they care who they get their 33% from. Thank You Netflix!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3Fan
December 30, 2009 9:19 AM
Soooooo, someone filed a "frivolous" lawsuit and lost. Sounds like the system worked to me. I guess what the US CofC means by legal reform is that nobody can ever sue a business.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chard
December 30, 2009 10:32 AM in reply to 3Fan
Just what I was thinking. this guy says he spent 20K on the case, which sounds like he got off easy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slowpoke
December 30, 2009 9:27 AM
Yet another reason to avoid movie theaters. BTW is Tom Delay in this ad, talking about his frivolous lawsuit of a few years ago?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
patrickd
December 30, 2009 9:31 AM
@HappyUpstaterWhoShoutsLoudlyAndOften: Your profile says "libertarian on most issues." Guess not on "right to spend (or waste) one's money purchasing ad time on the multiplex screen."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cjwempo
December 30, 2009 9:37 AM
ROTFL, but thats what the bottom feeding, blood sucking attorneys do best ! LOL
RT
www.invisibility-tools.pl.tc
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zephyrus
December 30, 2009 9:50 AM
Is there a site that lists members of the national Chamber of Commerce (as opposed to local ones which usually seem pretty sane)? Methinks a boycott is in order.
I swear, they're just shameless. They nominally supported the stimulus of course, because it'd help the economy and business, but did they drop tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to help it past or make it a bigger one? No, even though that'd have been far more effective, even on the very crass terms of increasing the profit margin of businesses, than making consumers unable to seek legal redress against corporations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
December 30, 2009 2:31 PM in reply to Zephyrus
I dunno - probably somewhere.
You could try their Facebook site:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=206618173441&comments
Or, I should say - you could see if this Facebook page gets you to their Facebook site/profile/whatevertheheckitis, and whether that has any info.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Africanlivedit
December 30, 2009 9:52 AM
Chamber of Commerce = Today's new tobacco companies? Tort reform is up there with Al Gore and whether Obama was born in the U.S., Republicans really don't get more riled up for anything else, do they? Well, there is Clinton's b.j.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
December 30, 2009 12:26 PM in reply to Africanlivedit
Republican sympathies are very strangely placed. A thousand people dorwning in New orleans? Their own goddamn fault! Some poor company -- and knowing the chamber, they mean big corporations -- with faulty, defective products that faces lawsuits? Boo hoo!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
December 30, 2009 10:05 AM
The only thing worse than blood sucking attorneys are predatory companies that give us salmonella-tainted food, lead-laden toys, and cars that catch on fire.
Maybe the chamber and its members should clean up its own fucking act, and half of these "frivolous" lawsuits would go away. These are the same assholes who fought every reform for human health in memory -- asbestos, leaded gas, lead in toys, phthalates in plastics, BPA in baby bottles.
And they wonder why they get sued!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ed in Bham
December 30, 2009 11:03 AM
What was old is new again. Opponents of the New Deal did the same thing through this newsreel on the NRA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L7txbm8S5Q
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
December 30, 2009 11:07 AM
The ads are playing on TV as well. The pivotal unanswered questions in the ad are: what was the claim, and what was the outcome? (Full disclosure: I'm an attorney, but I don't do torts) The American legal system already provides for sanctions for filing a "frivolous" lawsuit. Filing a lawsuit and losing is not automatically considered "frivolous" -- just as defending a claim and losing is not considered a "frivolous defense".
Clearly, some people file frivolous claims, but a lot more file claims but lose. The Chamber and the "tort reformers" have for years seeking to eliminate not just the former (which are already sanctionable), but the latter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
M.L.H.
December 30, 2009 11:16 AM
Technically, trailers are ads before movies, but those are well targeted and accepted due to long tradition.
I've never heard anyone voice an opinion about the recent ad barrage before movies other than disgust. Some might say we haven't heard from the "silent majority", but I think the success of the DVD rental business is the voice of the silent majority on this topic.
Knock yourself out, CoC.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wildwilly1111
December 30, 2009 12:19 PM
Isn't this the same US Chamber of Commerce that opposes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, misleads about healthcare reform and inflates its business membership count by a factor of 10?
Healthy skepticism is warranted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AdAbsurdum
December 30, 2009 12:23 PM
They always put that family business face to an issue which really is all about huge corporations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
December 30, 2009 12:27 PM in reply to AdAbsurdum
I guess Ford Motor getting sued for their cars catching on fire wouldn't play on the heart strings.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
December 30, 2009 2:16 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Heh - Pinto, Firestone/Explorer, asbestos, thalidomide, hidden credit card fees - these are all things that the CoC wants you to be vulnerable to.
And there are undoubtedly more, more recent, and possibly more compelling examples that can be used against this whole movement.
Truth be told, though, I would be amenable to some limitations, in exchange for some other limitations.
I.e. - children in a community are exposed to X, and many of them contract long-term health problems of varying severity, and it can be traced to the activities of company X on behalf of company Y.
Rather than allowing the parents, other relatives, and children to file suit, perhaps they could be allowed(that is, no prior restraint or criminal sanction) to firebomb the homes(while occupied) of the company principals, directors, and chief investors.
Or shoot them in the street.
The directly affected would of course be free from civil or criminal sanctions.
Bystanders who get involved, or other parties affected - but not directly, would have recourse to the "justifiable homicide" defense.
Law enforcement or private security who interfere would have to be subject to imprisonment and if loss of life occurs, capital punishment.
All things considered, I think keeping tort suits available is a much cheaper(for the business principals) and less violently messy option.
It should be noted, though that my suggestion would lead to a lot more turnover in upper management, which would be good for the employment picture. So would the increase in bereavement services, come to think of it.
I dunno - on the one hand, we've got the kinder, gentler, touchy-feely, can't-we-all-just-get-along tort claims route, and the let's-keep-government-out-of-business-affairs, economic-growth-and-employment stimulating, Old Testament-style method on the other.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
December 30, 2009 2:08 PM in reply to AdAbsurdum
Just like they put the small business owner or family farmer, who is virtually extinct, concerning repealing the "death tax." Never do we see commercials with paris hilton running around on rodeo spending her inheritance and wanting that extra gucci bag.
What a crock of bull.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
December 30, 2009 2:09 PM in reply to AdAbsurdum
Just like they put the small business owner or family farmer, who is virtually extinct, concerning repealing the "death tax." Never do we see commercials with paris hilton running around on rodeo spending her inheritance and wanting that extra gucci bag.
What a crock of bull.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GonDaddy
December 30, 2009 3:31 PM
Kenga gets it. The alternative to rule of (tort) law is free for all. Let's not have the public, through the government, warn its members about dangerous business activities such as selling products that, incidentally, kill you (not an advertised feature), and let's not have the courts provide a venue for consumer complaints. Caveat emptor! And if you're too stupid to understand the chemical ingredients of every product, the engineering risk parameters of every machine, etc., well then, the market just weeded you out, baby! Don't buy products and machines if you can't stomach the risk that your purchase will have a 1000% profit margin for the seller and will also kill you. That's the market, stupid! You don't deserve to live! Only those with the gumption to get out their and sell, sell, sell deserve anything at all. The rest of you are undeserving, so shut up and buy my loan refinance package, here's the 500 pages of contractual agreement my corporate lawyer drew up, which enslaves you for life, isn't the government terrible for requiring your signature on page 439?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chard
December 30, 2009 5:42 PM
What I especially dislike is the implication that Rustbelt jobs were lost through "frivolous lawsuits" when, in fact, the Chamber and co. shipped those jobs overseas.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?