IMDb Logo

It's not called a Database for nothin'., which owns the popular Internet Movie Database, is asking a judge to unmask the anonymous actress who filed suit against the company for publishing her true age without her permission.

If granted, the move would put an end to Hollywood's favorite guessing game. Here's the deal.

Per a motion to dismiss filed in Washington federal court (a copy of which was obtained by the Hollywood Reporter), Amazon attorneys assert that they believe they know the name of the woman, ID'd in court docs as only Jane Doe. They claim that she originally demanded IMDb post a false birthdate, which, they argue, would have been intentionally defrauding the public by passing herself off to potential employers as younger than she actually is.

The original complaint was filed on Oct. 13, with the plaintiff claiming she didn't want to reveal her identity for fear she might suffer backlash from Tinseltown producers, directors and casting agents who might not hire the thesp for film and TV roles.

There were only a few clues to who she is, notably that she is of Asian descent and resides in Texas.

Her suit claimed the Seattle-based company mined the confidential information from a credit card she provided to pay for the site's upgraded service for professionals, IMDbPro, which in turn then included it in her updated profile.

After subsequent attempts to get the site to remove her age and name were rebuffed, the mystery woman claimed in her suit that she felt she had to take legal action because she missed out on jobs due to IMDb's unauthorized biographical tidbits.

The folks at Amazon, however, assert the suit is a waste of the court's time.

"Truth and justice are philosophical pillars of this Court. The perpetuation of fraud, even for an actor's career, is inconsistent with these principals," states the motion to dismiss. "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."

The company's lawyers also contend that by disclosing her true age, they're doing right by consumers by protecting them from deception.

Amazon says that it believes it's figured out the identity of the plaintiff based on those prior letters she sent in complaining about the situation, though the firm acknowledged it can't be 100 percent sure. Therefore, it wants the 9th Circuit to unmask her on its behalf out of the belief that allowing her to proceed anonymously would be prejudicial and potentially hurt the company.

" cannot fairly defend against the Complaint in this case with the identity of the plaintiff secreted," read the motion.

Attorneys for both sides were unavailable for immediate comment.

  • Share
  • Tweet
  • Share