Love Is Blind? Read Your Contract.

Written by Shayna Toh.

Behind the scenes of reality TV, producers and contestants have faced their own fair share of scandals over fairness of contracts. But what comes next?

Bachelor Nation was rocked last month during the latest “After the Final Rose” finale, which saw the newest Bachelorette, Jennifer Tran—notably the series’ first Asian-American lead—sitting in front of a live audience with her now ex-fiancé. Distraught and sobbing, she explained how he had ended their engagement and relationship shortly after cameras stopped rolling. When asked if the producers could play the clip of their now-doomed proposal, she responded: “Do I have a choice?”

Her words became the rallying cry for the struggles of reality TV contestants today. This past year alone, the laundry list of lawsuits facing reality TV programs includes sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and unsafe working conditions on multiple shows including Love is Blind, Love Island, and the Real Housewives. While the industry burgeons, these suits reveal that its practices range from “outrageous” to abusive.

A common theme among all these allegations is that producers put contestants in difficult situations to provoke reactions that make for good reality TV, without consideration of how such situations affect the actors themselves.

By now, it is common knowledge to any reality TV fan that contestants sign up to live by the strictest of rules when they are on a show: no cell phones, no internet, no music, no eating on camera (even on filmed dates!), 24/7 filming, prior sexual and psychological health evaluations, and more. However, a closer look at the contractual agreements between contestants and production companies reveals the extent of the rules that contestants must abide by and the amount of risk they agree to bear.

The Love is Blind Participant Release and Agreement obtained by Reality Blurred, a self-proclaimed publication covering reality TV news, stipulates that should a contestant breach their “publicity and/or confidentiality obligations,” they “agree to pay Producer and Network the sum of One Million Dollars per breach, plus disgorgement of any income.” This provides context to Tran’s statement of not “hav[ing] a choice” to watch her proposal live – one wonders if her potential refusal to do as the producers wanted would lead to any legal and financial repercussions. Previous cast members have alleged a “$50K fine associated with leaving the show,” potentially compelling participants who have made it past the engagement stage to show up at the altar, even if the relationship was already going south.

A look at the Bachelor in Paradise contract shows how producers are given full discretion to “change, add to, take from, edit, translate, reformat or reprocess” footage “in any manner Producer may determine in its sole discretion.” This has led to multiple manipulations of reality, allowing producers to “create drama where none actually exists.” 

Key to these contracts are provisions exculpating producers of almost all liability, even in cases of injury or death, because the contestants are deemed to have given their consent so as to participating in these series. Together with arbitration clauses and non-disclosure agreements, both of which are common contractual features, producers provide these actors little avenue, in substance or procedure, to bring suit or even raise awareness of their grievances. 

Despite the alleged working conditions imposed and the mistreatment contestants face, they have historically been unsuccessful in claiming unconscionability of contract, a doctrine typically cited to stop contractual enforcement if there has been unfair or oppressive behavior towards one party.

This doctrine, reserved for extreme scenarios, is often seen as an inadequate cause of action due to the high burden of proof a plaintiff must bring. Furthermore, factors such as a contestant’s voluntary application and agreement to participate, industry norms, and the opportunity for substantial returns have led courts to find that such a contract, while potentially exploitative, does not “shock the conscience” with its unfairness. As Angela Angotti, a lawyer who hosts podcast The Bravo Docket about legal issues in reality TV, has said: “when you freely sign a contract not under duress, it’s difficult to get out of that.”

A suit against Netflix earlier this year by Love Is Blind contestant Renee Poche sought a release from her non-disclosure agreement. She argued that a contract preventing contestants from seeking redress was contrary to public policy, and should thus be unenforceable. Such an argument was ultimately rejected by the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

In addition to these limited means of legal recourse, the dissatisfaction towards producers is not shared among all reality TV stars. Some have lashed in public: Real Housewives of New York City’s Luann de Lesseps publicly called out her co-star, asking “Why bite the hand that feeds you? You make millions and gazillions of dollars.”

Her statement reveals two views: first, the view held by some reality stars, that the millions of dollars and fame reality TV provides is more than enough consideration; second, the view held by producers, who believe that the questionable, sometimes vice-filled, situations that contestants find themselves in are exactly what spurs viewership, both of which provide a capitalistic impetus to retain the status quo of the contractual agreements.

Granted, the “day of reckoning” that the entertainment lawyers Bryan Freedman and Mark Geragos promised following their lawsuit, representing a number of reality TV contestants across TV shows, has yet to arrive. However, while lawsuits have been commonplace, the tension seems to have reached a boiling point.

As reality TV has proliferated around the world, more programs have led to more lawsuits, creating more stars who have vowed to work together to combat unfair contractual practices. In the last year, the ecosystem has seen initiatives such as the Unscripted Cast Advocacy Network—launched as a support system fighting for the right to privacy, unfair labor practices, and transparency—and there have been murmurs of a reality TV union being formed.

The messiness of these conflicts will likely be at the forefront of the public sphere for quite some time to come. Whether the lawsuits and initiatives succeed, this seems to be one storyline producers cannot edit away.