## Facts

- Several individuals appeared briefly and non-anonymously in a feature film presented as a mockumentary; one plaintiff, Michael Psenicska, appeared as a driving instructor in an on-camera lesson.
- Plaintiffs alleged they were told the project was a serious documentary about the integration of foreign people into American life, but the film was a comedic production that subjected them to ridicule.
- Each plaintiff signed a written “Standard Consent Agreement” for modest compensation.
- The agreements granted producers the right to record plaintiffs’ images, voices, and conversations and to use the footage in connection with a broadly defined “Program.”
- The agreements included broad releases for claims arising out of or connected with plaintiffs’ appearances, including claims tied to editing, manipulation, portrayal, and the “nature” of the program.
- The agreements also contained specific non-reliance language stating the participant was not relying on any promises or statements about the nature of the film or the identity of others involved.
- After the film’s release, plaintiffs claimed embarrassment, emotional distress, and related harms from how their appearances were used.

## Issues

1. Whether fraud and fraudulent inducement claims can proceed when plaintiffs signed written agreements specifically disclaiming reliance on representations about the nature of the film.
2. Whether broad release language in participant consent agreements bars unjust enrichment and emotional distress claims based on the use and editing of plaintiffs’ filmed appearances.
3. Whether contract terms such as “documentary-style film” were ambiguous enough to avoid dismissal at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The district court granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions and dismissed the complaints.
- The court held the specific non-reliance clauses defeated fraud-based claims because plaintiffs contractually disclaimed reliance on statements about the film’s nature.
- The court held the broad releases barred unjust enrichment and emotional distress claims arising from plaintiffs’ participation and the subsequent use and editing of their appearances.
- The court rejected plaintiffs’ attempt to narrow “documentary-style” to non-fiction only, finding the agreements’ operative grants and releases broad and unambiguous.
- The Second Circuit affirmed in a summary order, agreeing that valid written release agreements barred the asserted claims.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York law, a party who specifically disclaims reliance on representations about a subject cannot later plead reasonable reliance on those representations to support a fraudulent inducement or misrepresentation claim.
- Clear, broad media consent agreements and releases can bar tort and quasi-contract claims that arise from participation, depiction, editing, or the nature of the production when the claims fall within the release’s scope.
- A signatory’s subjective expectations about a project’s tone or genre cannot override unambiguous written consent terms, particularly where the contract includes explicit non-reliance provisions.
- At the pleading stage, courts may dismiss claims contradicted by unambiguous releases and disclaimers incorporated into the parties’ written agreements.

## Conclusion

The courts enforced the participants’ written consent agreements as written, holding that specific non-reliance clauses foreclosed fraud theories based on alleged pre-signing descriptions of the film and that broad releases barred unjust enrichment and emotional distress claims arising from how plaintiffs were filmed, edited, and portrayed.


Psenicska v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 2008 WL 4185752 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2008), aff'd, 409 F. App'x 368 (2d Cir. 2009)