Repost from BHB: $166 Million
This came across my desk yesterday and I thought you girls would appreciate it, especially after Vicky1706's post about the TV show on Oxygen last night :
$166 Million 'Bridezilla' Suit Is Dismissed
New York Lawyer
October 18, 2004
By Mark Fass
New York Law Journal
A $166 million claim filed by a disgruntled bride against the company behind the reality TV show 'Bridezilla' has been dismissed by a Bronx Supreme Court judge.
Julia Swinton-Williamson initiated the action against September Films, alleging she had been tricked into participating in the program, in which, according to ads, 'nine brides become nightmares and crumble under the stress of planning their weddings.'
Ms. Swinton-Williamson claimed she was told by producersand cameramen that the show would be called 'Metro Brides,' and that it would be 'responsible and dignified.' But two weeks after her October 2002 wedding, she discovered the true angle of the show.
September Films'misleading statements notwithstanding, Justice Janice Bowman granted the company's motion for summary judgment.
'[The] essence of the plaintiff's action is based on their depiction on camera,' she wrote, 'but nothing thedefendants said made the plaintiffs act in the manner in which they did.'
$166 Million 'Bridezilla' Suit Is Dismissed
New York Lawyer
October 18, 2004
By Mark Fass
New York Law Journal
A $166 million claim filed by a disgruntled bride against the company behind the reality TV show 'Bridezilla' has been dismissed by a Bronx Supreme Court judge.
Julia Swinton-Williamson initiated the action against September Films, alleging she had been tricked into participating in the program, in which, according to ads, 'nine brides become nightmares and crumble under the stress of planning their weddings.'
Ms. Swinton-Williamson claimed she was told by producersand cameramen that the show would be called 'Metro Brides,' and that it would be 'responsible and dignified.' But two weeks after her October 2002 wedding, she discovered the true angle of the show.
September Films'misleading statements notwithstanding, Justice Janice Bowman granted the company's motion for summary judgment.
'[The] essence of the plaintiff's action is based on their depiction on camera,' she wrote, 'but nothing thedefendants said made the plaintiffs act in the manner in which they did.'
