{"id":3765,"date":"2024-10-31T15:14:10","date_gmt":"2024-10-31T19:14:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/?p=3765"},"modified":"2024-10-31T15:14:10","modified_gmt":"2024-10-31T19:14:10","slug":"love-is-blind-read-your-contract","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/2024\/10\/love-is-blind-read-your-contract\/","title":{"rendered":"Love Is Blind? Read Your Contract."},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Written by Shayna Toh.<\/p>\n

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?<\/em><\/p>\n

Bachelor Nation was rocked last month during the latest \u201cAfter the Final Rose\u201d finale, which saw the newest Bachelorette, Jennifer Tran\u2014notably the series\u2019 first Asian-American lead\u2014sitting in front of a live audience with her now ex-fianc\u00e9. 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: \u201cDo I have a choice?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Her words became the rallying cry for the struggles of reality TV contestants today. This past year alone, the <\/span>laundry list<\/span><\/a> of lawsuits facing reality TV programs includes sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and unsafe working conditions on multiple shows including <\/span>Love is Blind, Love Island<\/span><\/i>, and the <\/span>Real Housewives. <\/span><\/i>While the industry burgeons, these suits reveal that its practices range from \u201c<\/span>outrageous<\/span><\/a>\u201d to abusive.<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

The <\/span>Love is Blind Participant Release and Agreement<\/span><\/a> obtained by <\/span>Reality Blurred<\/span><\/a>, a self-proclaimed publication covering reality TV news, stipulates that should a contestant breach their \u201cpublicity and\/or confidentiality obligations,\u201d they \u201cagree to pay Producer and Network the sum of One Million Dollars per breach, plus disgorgement of any income.\u201d This provides context to Tran\u2019s statement of not \u201chav[ing] a choice\u201d to watch her proposal live \u2013 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 \u201c<\/span>$50K fine associated with leaving the show<\/span><\/a>,\u201d 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

A <\/span>look at the Bachelor in Paradise contract<\/span><\/a>\u00a0shows how producers are given full discretion to \u201cchange, add to, take from, edit, translate, reformat or reprocess\u201d footage \u201cin any manner Producer may determine in its sole discretion.\u201d This has led to multiple manipulations of reality, allowing producers to \u201c<\/span>create drama where none actually exists<\/span><\/a>.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Key to these contracts are provisions exculpating producers of almost all liability, <\/span>even in cases of injury or death<\/span><\/a>, 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.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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 \u201c<\/span>shock the conscience<\/span><\/a>\u201d with its unfairness. As Angela Angotti, a lawyer who hosts podcast <\/span>The Bravo Docket <\/span><\/i>about legal issues in reality TV, has said: \u201cwhen you freely sign a contract not under duress, it\u2019s difficult to get out of that.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

A <\/span>suit<\/span><\/a> against Netflix earlier this year by <\/span>Love Is Blind <\/span><\/i>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\u00a0County\u00a0Superior Court.<\/span><\/p>\n

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: <\/span>Real Housewives of New York City<\/span><\/i>\u2019s Luann de Lesseps publicly called out her co-star, asking \u201c<\/span>Why bite the hand that feeds you? You make millions and gazillions of dollars.<\/span><\/a>\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Her statement reveals two views:\u00a0first, 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 <\/span>believe<\/span><\/a> that the questionable, sometimes vice-filled, situations that contestants find themselves in are exactly <\/span>what spurs viewership<\/span><\/a>, both of which provide a capitalistic impetus to retain the status quo of the contractual agreements.<\/span><\/p>\n

Granted, the \u201c<\/span>day of reckoning<\/span><\/a>\u201d 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

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 <\/span>Unscripted Cast Advocacy Network<\/span><\/a>\u2014launched as a support system fighting for the right to privacy, unfair labor practices, and transparency\u2014and there have been murmurs of a reality TV union being formed.<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 \u201cAfter the Final Rose\u201d finale, which saw the newest Bachelorette, Jennifer Tran\u2014notably the series\u2019 first Asian-American lead\u2014sitting […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":39,"featured_media":3766,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[28,31],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[382],"class_list":["post-3765","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-commentary","category-highlight"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/78\/2024\/10\/shutterstock_2469360755-scaled.jpeg","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZjrR-YJ","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"authors":[{"term_id":382,"user_id":39,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jsel","display_name":"JSEL","avatar_url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4abb87a025d5a7951a4b4249facf4d22ea8002b216770229a96689038d0f83bc?s=96&d=mm&r=g","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3765","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/39"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3765"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3765\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3766"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3765"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3765"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3765"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=3765"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}