Netflix sued for $128 million by homeowners for using house in ‘Buying Beverly Hills’ trailer

A family is suing Netflix for $128 million, alleging that a likely drone image of their isolated home that appeared in an ad for the series ‘Buying Beverly Hills’ has caused harassment and left them concerned for their safety.

Aharon Dihno, 60, his partner Fernando Cortez and their twin sons are the plaintiffs in the Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit alleging their Hollywood Hills home has been a target for tourists and real estate agents since the trailer aired in September.

Netflix this week asked Judge Barbara Scheper to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the entire complaint should be thrown out both on its merits and for violating the company’s right to free speech.

The lawsuit alleges trespassing on privacy, violation of the state’s false advertising and privacy laws, and infliction of both intentional and negligent emotional distress.

A hearing on Netflix’s dismissal motions is scheduled for July 13.

Netflix asked Judge Barbara Scheper to dismiss the lawsuit, holding that the entire complaint should be thrown out both on its merits and for violating the company’s right to free speech.

The lawsuit filed by Dihno on March 21 claims that last September, Netflix ran an ad promoting “Buying Beverly Hills,” a reality show that featured the day-to-day operations of The Agency, a real estate firm that sells luxury properties. The show focuses specifically on The Agency’s Beverly Hills office.

The ad included an image of the Dihno family home, which is located on a hill above the height of any nearby street or home and is not visible from any vantage point in the immediate vicinity, meaning the photo could only have been obtained with a drone, the lawsuit says.

The interior layout of the house, entrances, exits and a platform accessible from the main entrance were also claimed to have been posted on the homepage of the streaming network which has 231 million subscribers.

After the ad aired, Dihno and his family “were subjected to a constant deluge of visitors interested in viewing the property,” according to the lawsuit, causing the plaintiffs to fear for their safety and lose any sense of privacy.

The family said they also received harassing phone calls from real estate brokers interested in selling the property, according to the lawsuit. Zillow estimates the home, which last sold in 2016, for $3,381,600.

The house is located on a ridge above the height of any nearby street or home and is not visible from any vantage point in the immediate vicinity, meaning the photo could only have been obtained with a drone, the lawsuit says.

After the ad aired, Dihno and his family “were subjected to a constant deluge of visitors interested in viewing the property,” causing the plaintiffs to fear for their safety and lose any sense of privacy.

Dihno’s business, which he operates from his home, has been adversely affected, the lawsuit claims, with the entire family suffering emotional distress and reputational damage.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs said they believe families associated with reality shows are often targeted by criminals who want to break into the homes seen on these shows and that access is easier because entrances, exits and floor layouts have been ventilated.

In March 2022, a neighbor of the plaintiffs was tied up in his own home and held up at gunpoint by people who followed him home, and another close family was beaten and $1 million in property was stolen by trespassers, the lawsuit says.

Dihno’s personal business, which he operates out of his home, has been adversely affected, according to the lawsuit, with the entire family suffering emotional distress and reputational damage.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs said they believe families associated with reality shows are often targeted by criminals who want to rob homes.

Mauricio Umansky from The Beverly Hills Purchase

The Dihno family acknowledges that a third party, not Netflix, took the photo and that it was later made available for licensing on the photo provider’s service, Shutterstock, according to court documents from lawyers for the streaming service.

Even if Netflix were responsible for taking the image, the family does not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy in view of the outside of their home,” Netflix’s lawyers argue. in one of the two motions for removal.

“This case is the plaintiffs’ attempt to turn Netflix’s routine use of a publicly available licensed stock photo into a ten-claim litigation with a payday of more than $128 million.”

The second motion is filed under the state’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law, which is intended to prevent people from using the courts and potential threats of a lawsuit to intimidate those who are exercising their First Amendment rights.