By: Bridget Harrington
For the last few years, the news has been rife with discussion of workplace abuse and harassment. Because of its position in the public eye, the music industry has been overrun with these allegations, some of which have been at the forefront of national conversations. Much of this dialogue has stemmed from movements with online origins, such as the #MeToo and #FreeBritney movements. The concerns surrounding abusive practices in the music industry do not end there, however.
Earlier this year, the band Why Don’t We (“WDW”) declined to sign onto a record deal until its management company, Signature Entertainment (“Signature”), reinstated former managing partner Randy Phillips (“Phillips”). In its refusal to reinstate Phillips, Signature and another managing partner, Dave Loeffler (“Loeffler”), sued the five band members and Phillips for breach of contract, anticipatory breach of contract, and tortious interference with a business contract. Phillips countersued to have Loeffler removed as WDW’s manager, alleging a series of abuses against the band. WDW subsequently filed a petition with the California Labor Commissioner to void its contract with Signature, citing violations of the Talent Agencies Act (“Act”. Subsequently, on September 9, 2021, the band issued a public statement via Instagram in which it accused Loeffler and Signature of extensive verbal and financial abuse, false imprisonment, and withholding access to food which caused members of the group to develop eating disorders.
These accusations are not without precedent. Several artists, working with different management companies, have made similar claims about their time in the industry. Singer Rebecca Ferguson, via Twitter, cited isolation from family members, coerced drug consumption, and limitations on her food intake, sleep schedule, and access to medical care. One Direction’s Liam Payne recently appeared in a Diary of a CEO podcast, where he asserted that he and his bandmates were locked into hotel rooms while they were on tour, ostensibly for their protection, but that it had lasting effects on his mental health. Perhaps most infamously, Britney Spears (“Spears”), claimed that she was stripped of autonomy in financial, personal, and even reproductive matters by her conservator and her management team, sparking a national outcry.
Spears is far from the only star whose fans organized online to support her in a legal matter, however. A few years ago, recording artist Kesha attempted to extricate herself from a contract with producer Dr. Luke after she claimed he sexually abused her. Despite public outcry to #FreeKesha, the New York State Supreme Court chose not to issue an injunction allowing her to record with another producer, claiming that the contract had been negotiated at length and it would not be commercially reasonable for the agreement to be invalidated.
The circumstances surrounding these artists may only be the tip of the iceberg, however. It’s unsurprising that non-disclosure agreements (“NDAs”), and arbitration clauses would be in full force in any artist’s contract, given the highly public nature of the industry and managing organizations’ interest in self-protection. Both arbitration and NDAs could keep the claims of such treatment out of the public eye. There is thus little case law in recent years to suggest how abuse allegations and their implications on entertainment contracts have played out behind the scenes.
In instances where an artist is not prevented from speaking out or publicly litigating an allegation, they may be able to garner some support from the general public but could endure other consequences. While Kesha received both personal and financial support from fellow artists, she continues to face defamation claims over her public statements. The Kesha case does not bode well for WDW and Phillips’s attempts to remove Signature and Loeffler in the courts, as the judiciary seems to favor maintaining contractual agreements which have been duly negotiated. While the New York ruling is not binding over litigation taking place in Florida and California, the New York Supreme Court’s opinion will likely carry significant weight. By publishing its claims against Signature and Loeffler via Instagram, WDW potentially exposed itself to defamation suits. WDW can only hope for the same overwhelming support issued for Spears and Kesha throughout its litigation, which seems weighted in favor of the opposition.
Tides may be turning in WDW’s favor, however. At the time the band first signed with Signature, some members of the group were as young as fifteen years old. Though it is unclear under what circumstances the then-minor artists signed their contracts–and whether they had adequate representation–concerns may be raised about capacity and coercion in relation to their contracts. Bright-eyed teenagers with dreams of record deals may be persuaded to sign away any number of rights in a contract if the alternative is career failure. Similarly, Spears, during a mental health crisis that could have diminished her capacity to contract, may have been led to believe that signing away her own autonomy was a necessary evil. While judges are not supposed to be swayed by public opinion, the publicity around Spears’s circumstances is nearly impossible to avoid and could shift judicial outcomes away from that in the Kesha case.
Court cases aside, WDW’s petition with the California Labor Commissioner (“CLC”) may be the swifter route to voiding the contract. It’s not yet clear on what grounds WDW asserts Signature violated the Talent Agencies Act (“Act”). However, per Park v. Deftones, the Act has been used previously to invalidate a contract between a band and its managers. Further, as the CLC is a part of an administrative office rather than a judicial one, it’s possible that the CLC will be more susceptible to public opinion.
Though there is no certainty in who will prevail in this contractual dispute, what is certain is that the public has largely denounced the continuation of managerial and recording contracts in cases of artists being abused. The California legislature is eyeing reform of its conservatorship system following Spears’s claims; in the UK, Ferguson has sought a parliamentary inquiry into managerial abuses. Reform may be on the horizon as artists continue to employ social media and other means of publicizing their stories, guiding public opinion in their favor. It remains to be seen if the courts and local administrators will follow in making the changes necessary to prevent future abuses like those which these entertainers have alleged.
Student Bio: Bridget Harrington is a second-year day student at Suffolk University Law School and is a staff member on the Journal of High Technology Law. Bridget received a Bachelor of Science in Accounting and Finance from the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are the views of the author alone and do not represent the views of JHTL or Suffolk University Law School.
