arbitration Archives

NLRB says contestants on ‘Love is Blind’ should be counted as employees

December 13, 2024
The hit reality show “Love Is Blind” is facing scrutiny after the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed a complaint against its production companies, Kinetic Content and Delirium TV. The NLRB alleges the companies violated labor laws, including using unlawful confidentiality and noncompete clauses in cast member contracts.

Reality TV stars classified as employees

The NLRB’s complaint seeks to classify “Love Is Blind” contestants as employees rather than independent contractors. This distinction could lead to significant changes in the reality TV industry. According to a legal expert speaking to CNN, this case could increase transparency in an industry long accused of exploitation.

Previous complaints against “Love Is Blind”

According to The New York Times, in 2023, contestants Renee Poche and Nicholas Thompson filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB. Poche claims she was paid just $1,000 per week during filming, with no union-negotiated standards for pay.

Thompson, a contestant from the second season, said in an Instagram post Thursday, Dec. 12, in response to the news, “Employees have important legal protections and rights that contractors don’t have, like minimum wage, overtime pay, and the right to organize.”

Poche also accused Delirium TV of initiating arbitration proceedings after she spoke out about her partner’s financial instability during her season. The company alleged she violated her nondisclosure agreement and sought $4 million in damages.

Restrictive contracts under fire

In response to separate complaints last year, the show’s creator told People magazine that the show documents the independent choices of adult participants. However, the NLRB argues that restrictive contract terms, such as a $50,000 fine for leaving without legitimate reasons, are unlawful.

Poche’s lawyer, quoted by Deadline, stated, “Mark Geragos and I, along with our legal teams, have been working closely with the NLRB for over a year and are thrilled that this collaboration has resulted in a monumental filing that promises to change the reality TV industry forever.”

This development comes just months before the premiere of the eighth season of “Love is Blind.” New episodes launch on Feb. 14.

Straight Arrow News reached out to Kinetic Content and Delirium TV for comment but has yet to receive a response.
Related Stories
- Reality TV contestants lose chance at $500K prize after killing protected bird
- Kim Kardashian attends White House meeting on criminal justice reform
Uber wins case based on terms and conditions agreement over 2022 crash

October 3, 2024
In what may serve as another reminder to read the fine print, a court blocked a New Jersey couple from suing Uber after a crash left them with broken bones and hefty medical bills. The cases dismissal reported by several outlets on Wednesday, Oct. 2, is because the couple accepted the terms and conditions from the rideshare app before taking the ride, which requires any complaint to be handled outside of court.

The pair tried to take Uber to court for a jury trial after their Uber driver ran a red light and got hit by another car in 2022, but an appeals court judge sided with the rideshare giant instead.

The couple contended that it was their underaged daughter who clicked the most recent agreement with Uber Eats in 2022 while ordering a pizza. For that reason, the couple believes the case should move forward.

However, Uber argued back that it wasn’t their daughter who signed agreements in 2015 and 2021, both of which waived the couple’s right to a court trial with arbitration clauses. It also didn’t reportedly help the couple’s case that they couldn’t “surmise” whether or not their daughter actually clicked the button to agree to the terms.

The husband reacted to the judge’s ruling by saying that they are “heartbroken,” but said that they expect to attempt to bring their case to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

The lawsuit that was tossed by the appellate demanded that Uber pay for physical, emotional and financial damages the crash caused the couple.

It’s not the first time that this has happened, in fact, it happened earlier this year. In August, Disney used a similar defense, but later reversed course, on a dispute over terms of service in a wrongful death suit.

The case was brought against the entertainment company by a man whose wife died after an allergic reaction at a Disney resort restaurant.

Disney tried to have the lawsuit tossed because the plaintiff signed up for a Disney+ trial years earlier. However, after backlash, Disney said that the case can now move forward in court.
Related Stories
The hidden cost of clicking ‘agree’ when it comes to consumer rights

August 21, 2024
If you’ve ever signed up for a cellphone plan, a streaming service, or created an account on a website, chances are you’ve signed away your right to sue that company for wrongdoing. Most of us don’t even realize it. But during the week of Aug. 18, that reality took center stage in a lawsuit against Disney.

One person, Jeffery Piccolo, filed a wrongful lawsuit against Disney. He claims his wife died from an allergic reaction after dining at a Disney Springs restaurant.

Disney denied any wrongdoing. The company argued that Piccolo had twice waived his right to sue. Once, when he signed up for Disney+, and again when he used Disney’s website to purchase park tickets.

Buried deep in the fine print of the terms and conditions was a clause agreeing to resolve disputes through arbitration instead of the court system. The case grabbed public attention, and Disney backed down after facing outcry.

Many people sign up for services and check the box that we agree to the terms. Hidden in these terms are often arbitration clauses. That means if something goes wrong, disputes are handed privately, outside the court system.

Most U.S. consumers are subject to arbitration clauses, often without knowing it. In 2018, more than 826 million such clauses were in effect, and that number has increased with the number of existing streaming services.

From banking scandals to workplace discrimination claims, these agreements make it harder to challenge corporations in a public courtroom.
Related Stories
Disney ditches Disney+ ‘terms of use’ defense in wrongful death lawsuit

August 20, 2024
Walt Disney Co. agreed to let a court decide a wrongful death lawsuit at one of its theme parks. The reversal comes after it attempted to send the case to arbitration because the man who brought the case agreed to terms of use for Disney+ when he signed up for a trial years earlier.

The lawsuit says Kanokporn Tangsuan had a fatal allergic reaction after eating at an Irish pub located on a Disney property. It says she and her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, along with his mother, decided to eat at the restaurant in 2023 because the website said it offered “allergen-free food.” The suit alleges Tangsuan had told the server several times she had a severe allergy to nuts and dairy.

“We believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss,” Disney Experiences Chairman Josh D’Amaro said in an email statement to Reuters and other media organizations. “As such, we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.”

Initially, Disney argued it should not be liable because it doesn’t own Raglan Road Irish Pub and therefore had no control over its operations.

The company later claimed that when Piccolo agreed to Disney+ terms of use in 2019, and when he bought tickets using the theme park’s website in 2023, he agreed to send any dispute between the user and the company to an arbitrator.

“The first page of the Subscriber Agreement states, in all capital letters, that ‘any dispute between You and Us, Except for Small Claims, is subject to a class action waiver and must be resolved by individual binding arbitration,’” the company said in a filing when it attempted to have the case dismissed.

Had the case been allowed to go to arbitration, it would have gone before a neutral third party that is not a judge. But after the company faced some bad press for the defense, Disney struck a different tone.

Piccolo’s lawsuit seeks $50,000 and other damages including loss of income and medical and legal costs.
Related Stories

NLRB says contestants on ‘Love is Blind’ should be counted as employees

Reality TV stars classified as employees

Previous complaints against “Love Is Blind”

Restrictive contracts under fire

Uber wins case based on terms and conditions agreement over 2022 crash

The hidden cost of clicking ‘agree’ when it comes to consumer rights

Disney ditches Disney+ ‘terms of use’ defense in wrongful death lawsuit

Certified unbiased reporting

Transparent and credible

Newsletter

Stay connected