Miramax Films Corp. v. Motion Picture Ass'n of Am., Inc., 148 Misc. 2d 1, 560 N.Y.S.2d 730 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1990)

Facts

  • Miramax Films Corporation distributed Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! in the United States; Pedro Almodóvar directed the film.
  • The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA), a private trade association, administered a voluntary film rating system (G, PG, PG-13, R, X) aimed at reflecting the sensibilities of the “average American parent.”
  • Miramax submitted the film for rating; a seven-member ratings board unanimously assigned an “X” rating, citing two sexually explicit scenes.
  • Miramax appealed within the MPAA; the Ratings Appeal Board vote tied, leaving the X rating in place.
  • Miramax withdrew from the MPAA process and released the film unrated; plaintiffs alleged this (like an X rating) substantially limited exhibition and advertising due to common industry practices.
  • Plaintiffs brought a CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking an order effectively changing the rating to “R,” or a declaration that the rating system and the X rating were arbitrary and capricious.

Issues

  1. Whether the MPAA’s assignment of an X rating to the film could be reviewed and set aside as “arbitrary and capricious” in an Article 78 proceeding.
  2. Whether a private, voluntary film-rating system constitutes governmental or quasi-governmental action subject to public-law constraints, including constitutional censorship principles.

Decision

  • The court granted the MPAA’s motion to dismiss the Article 78 petition.
  • The court held the X rating had a rational basis in the film’s content, particularly the two sexually explicit scenes, and was not arbitrary and capricious.
  • The court ruled the MPAA ratings process was private and voluntary, not governmental censorship or state action.
  • The court refused to substitute its judgment for the MPAA’s subjective suitability determination.
  • Article 78 review is generally directed to governmental or administrative action; extending it to a private ratings organization is disfavored absent a comparable legal duty.
  • A private, voluntary advisory ratings system does not constitute state action, even if market participants treat ratings as important for distribution and advertising.
  • A rating decision supported by stated content-based reasons satisfies rational-basis review and will not be invalidated as arbitrary and capricious without proof of bad faith, bias, or irrationality.
  • Economic consequences and stigma associated with a private rating do not, without government involvement, transform the rating into censorship subject to First Amendment constraints.

Conclusion

The court dismissed Miramax’s Article 78 challenge and upheld the MPAA’s X rating, concluding that the MPAA’s voluntary, private ratings system was not state action and that the rating had a rational basis grounded in the film’s sexually explicit content.