Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: September 7, 2016
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comJust over a year ago, Philip Philips sought to change the way contracts between reality television program participants and their managers are structured with his 19 Entertainment lawsuit. However, the group he sued is working to make sure that it can maintain the power to procure jobs for clients and require them to accept.
19 Entertainment, the producer of “American Idol,” was named in a petition to determine controversy by the singer, who claimed he was manipulated through his contract with the company. The deal required him to sign on to numerous jobs to participate in the long-running singing competition. Philips wasn’t the first former participant to file suit against 19 Entertainment, but he has made significant progress, and now the company is striking back. The string of lawsuits point towards a potential problem with the way production companies negotiate with reality TV participants. Specifically, the issue stems from what managers require talent to do outside of the programs.
If reality TV show participants achieve a certain level of fame through their appearances, they can leverage their public images in numerous ways. In a best-case scenario, that typically involves the individuals seeking endorsement and other TV deals. However, sometimes they can’t do this because of the extensive requirements of their contracts. Deals such as the one between 19 Entertainment and Philips may require participants to make appearances outside of programs such as “American Idol.”
“Under the Talent Agencies Act, only an agent can procure work for a client.”
This, Philips claimed, is a violation of certain labor regulations. First, under the Talent Agencies Act, only an agent can procure work for a client. Also, his lawsuit alleged that 19 Entertainment breached its fiduciary duty to Philips by requiring him to work jobs that benefited the company more than him. The production firm’s recently filed complaint seeks to test the singer’s claims. The company alleged that Philips has been avoiding his contractual duties in anticipation of a ruling in his favor, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
Philips’ attorney claimed the company’s complaint is an attempt to sidestep California regulations protecting entertainers from overly burdensome contracts. 19 Entertainment hopes to have the authority to continue requiring Philips to work events required by his contract.
If 19 Entertainment is able to pursue its legal action against Philips and wins the right to require him to make appearances noted in his contract, that outcome could be a victory for management companies in California. This would give these firms the power to procure employment for their clients, similar to the role agents play. In addition, it could alleviate the fiduciary duty Philips claimed exists and give managers more control over what they ask clients to do.
Anyone hoping for a role in reality TV or participating in an ongoing show should review his contracts and determine whether his manager is overstepping the boundaries of the Talent Agencies Act and complying with its fiduciary duty. That may not be something clients can challenge management on for long if 19 Entertainment comes out of this legal entanglement victorious.
For now, Philips has made significant progress in his fight for more favorable contracts. Whether this tilt goes in favor of Philips or 19 Entertainment remains to be determined, and the outcome can end up having a substantial effect on contracts between managers and their clients.
If you’re reviewing a management contract or would like to discuss the matter further, contact me, Anthony Caruso, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
If you’re considering closing your business, it’s crucial to understand that simply shutting your doors does not end your legal obligations. Unless you formally dissolve your business, it continues to exist in the eyes of the law—leaving you exposed to ongoing liabilities such as taxes, compliance violations, and potential lawsuits. Dissolving a business can seem […]
Author: Christopher D. Warren
Contrary to what many people think, corporate restructuring isn’t all doom and gloom. Revamping a company’s organizational structure, corporate hierarchy, or operations procedures can help keep your business competitive. This is particularly true during challenging times. Corporate restructuring plays a critical role in modern business strategy. It helps companies adapt quickly to market changes. Following […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]
Author: Dan Brecher
For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]
Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!