Too many ads before a movie? Man in India wins damages from cinema chain for taking up his time
Sign up now: Get insights on Asia's fast-moving developments
Mr Abhishekh claimed that he suffered “mental agony” and sued the company.
PHOTO ILLUSTRATION: PIXABAY
Follow topic:
Fed up with the long list of advertisements that play before a movie begins in theatres? You are not alone.
A consumer court in India has ruled in favour of an aggrieved moviegoer, Mr Abhishekh M.R., who complained that the litany of commercials that preceded a movie he watched had caused him “mental agony”.
In December 2023, the 31-year old lawyer bought three tickets to see war drama Sam Bahadur at a movie theatre of PVR Inox, India’s largest multiplex chain, in the southern city of Bangalore.
The movie was scheduled to begin at 4.05pm, and end at 6.30pm.
However, the screening was delayed for nearly 30 minutes due to “trailers, advertisements, and other fillers”, reported NBC News.
Mr Abhishekh told the court that the delay caused him to miss work appointments that were scheduled after the show, resulting in losses that “cannot be calculated in terms of money as a compensation”.
Speaking to CNN, he said that he counted two public service announcements and 17 commercials before the movie began.
The case was brought before Bangalore’s District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in January 2024, during which Mr Abhishekh claimed that he suffered “mental agony” and sued the company. He demanded 50,000 rupees (S$770) in damages, 5,000 rupees for the “mental agony” and 10,000 rupees for legal costs.
The commission ruled in his favour and the chain was ordered to pay Mr Abhishekh 20,000 rupees in damages, and another 8,000 rupees in costs.
According to CNN, PVR Inox was also ordered to pay 100,000 rupees to the Consumer Welfare Fund – a government body that works to protect consumers.
In its defence, the theatre chain said that it was legally required to screen 10 minutes of public service announcements before movies.
However, it was found that most of the footage played before the movie had been advertisements.
In its ruling, the court declared that “no one has the right to gain benefit out of others’ time and money”.
