Morality,
Deception,
and the
Rating System
Trevin Skeens of Brownsville, Md., recently
sued Wal-Mart Stores for allegedly deceiving customers
by stocking compact discs of the rock band Evanescence
that contain the “f-word.”
Mr. Skeens permitted his daughter to buy
the music for her 13th birthday because the CD didn’t
contain a parental advisory label alerting potential buyers
to the lyrics. Wal-Mart, you see, promotes itself as a
seller of clean music (and clean movies too). The company
represents to consumers that it will not sell albums with
parental advisory labels under the music industry’s
labeling system. The record company for this particular
music, however, decided not to apply an advisory label
to the Evanescence CD. So Mr. Skeens seeks damages of up
to $74,500 for each of the thousands of people in Maryland
who bought the music at Wal-Mart, and his lawyer wants
to file similar cases in other states. All because the
young Ms. Skeens was exposed to the f-word.
Morality continues to play an important
role in U.S. politics and law. The polling data from the
recent presidential
election make that point abundantly clear. Motivated by
issues ranging from gay marriage to abortion, “red
state” voters concerned about the moral fabric of
society had plenty of incentive to participate in the election.
Mr. Skeens has gone to court to protect
the morality of his teen daughter, and thousands of similarly
situated
Marylanders. But the legal theory articulated by the complaint
causes me heartburn. Specifically, Mr. Skeens believes
that Wal-Mart’s actions violate the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act’s prohibitions against false, deceptive
or misleading statements to consumers. Simply put, if a
labeling system exists, and Wal-Mart professes to use the
system, any non-compliance can constitute illegal consumer
deception.
The implications for our own movie rating
system are self-evident. Studios and theatre owners, acting
through their respective
trade associations, created a voluntary movie rating system.
The collective industry holds out this system to patrons
nationwide. Studio advertising targets appropriate audiences.
Cinemas do age-checks. But even with the best of intentions,
strong policies and employee training, we will never get
it right all of the time.
This is not the first time that we have
encountered this legal argument. The Federal Trade Commission
Act prohibits
misleading and deceptive statements to consumers as a matter
of federal law. The commission has now investigated our
industry’s rating system activities for five straight
years, releasing several comprehensive reports. The laws
on deception give the FTC that power to act.
Nor should we forget legislation previously
introduced by senators Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), Herb Kohl
(D-Wis.)
and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) that would have defined
the marketing of R-rated movies (and musical recordings
with
parental advisory labels) to children as a deceptive
act under FTC regulations. And a few years before that,
of
course, several bills where considered in Congress that
would fine theatre owners each time they failed to enforce
the ratings at the box office.
If any of these lawsuits or legislative
proposals ever succeeded, all of the voluntary entertainment
labeling
and rating systems would come crashing down. With the
potential exposure for mistakes calculated at tens
of thousands of
dollars per consumer, why would anyone use a rating
system in the first place? In the end, were Trevin Skeens
to
be successful in his lawsuit, Wal-Mart would abandon
its policies,
the music labeling system would be abolished, and Mr.
Skeens would have a much more difficult time protecting
the morality
of his daughter.
