Longtime Self-Represented Litigant Pursues Equalizing Talent Agencies Act before California's Highest Court after Two Decades
A New Battle for the Entertainment Industry
Showbiz has a significant dispute brewing with the California Labor Commissioner, as the Hollywood Reporter recently unveiled. For 73 years, the state's courts have enforced the Talent Agencies Act (TAA), interpreting it as if it granted licensed talent agents exclusive rights to secure work for artists. However, this interpretation conflicts with the legislature's explicit language in the Act.
California's courts have been interpreting CA Lab. Code § 1700.4 (a) as if it reserved procurement for licensed talent agents. But a closer look reveals that the statute only outlines the three core activities of talent agents—procuring, directing, and counseling artists—with no provisions explicitly reserving tasks for licensed individuals.
Interestingly, even though the Act doesn't provide a remedy for unlicensed procurement, the Commissioner has been systematically nullifying the contractual rights of unlicensed negotiators. Yet, this aspect of the Act has yet to be examined or commented upon by any California court.
In 2008, the California Supreme Court declined to consider the constitutionality of entwining personal managers into a licensing scheme, as pointed out by Rick Siegel, a key figure in the current challenge. However, this decision does not set a definitive precedent, and the issue remains contentious.
If granted, the California Supreme Court's review could decide whether the absence of a prohibition statute and associated remedy makes the Commissioner's voiding of unlicensed procurers' contracts unconstitutional. This case is crucial for the personal management industry, as it is estimated that this legal incongruity has led to between half to one billion dollars in compensation being voided or abandoned.
Clinton Billups, the President of the National Conference of Personal Managers (NCOPM), the industry's oldest and largest professional association, supports the challenge and believes it addresses fundamental issues that Violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, the Excessive Fines Clause of the 8th Amendment, and the Due Process and Equal Protection provisions of the 14th Amendment.
The case draws support from various parties, including individual managers, Professor Kevin J. Greene, the John J. Schumacher Chair at Southwestern Law School, and the domestic division of the Music Managers Forum (MMF-US), the leading trade association in the United States for artists' managers and self-managed artists.
If the Court decides to take up the case, Siegel anticipates that the justices will establish that the TAA's lack of a remedy for unlicensed procurers renders its enforcement unconstitutional, infringing upon the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, and the Excessive Fines Clause of the 8th Amendment.
Rick Siegel, a former personal manager, is no stranger to this issue. Between 1990 and 2008, he helped develop the careers of a list of renowned artists like Ellen DeGeneres, Craig Ferguson, Leah Remini, Seth Rogen, and Nia Vardalos. After winning a landmark TAA decision at the California Supreme Court in 2008, he has continued his crusade to ensure justice is served in the entertainment industry.
The National Conference of Personal Managers (NCOPM) and the Music Managers Forum (MMF) are championing Siegel's cause, urging the Court to review the case and clarify the industry's rules to provide clarity and protection for individual managers and artists alike. As the Court considers the case, this legal challenge promises to reshape the entertainment industry and ensure fair practices for all involved.
In the midst of a contentious dispute within the entertainment industry, there is a growing concern over California's interpretation of the Talent Agencies Act (TAA), impacting the roles of unlicensed negotiators and personal managers in securing work for artists. If the California Supreme Court's review is granted, it could potentially redefine the boundaries of finance, business, and entertainment in the entertainment industry, addressing issues surrounding due process, equal protection, and excessive fines.
