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.

Compliance programs are no longer judged by how they look on paper, but by how they function in the real world. Compliance monitoring is the ongoing process of reviewing, testing, and evaluating whether policies, procedures, and controls are being followed—and whether they are actually working. What Is Compliance Monitoring? In today’s heightened regulatory environment, compliance […]
Author: Dan Brecher

New Jersey personal guaranty liability is a critical issue for business owners who regularly sign contracts on behalf of their companies. A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision provides valuable guidance on when a business owner can be held personally responsible for a company’s debt. Under the Court’s decision in Extech Building Materials, Inc. v. […]
Author: Charles H. Friedrich

Commercial real estate trends in 2026 are being shaped by shifting economic conditions, technological innovation, and evolving tenant demands. As the market adjusts to changing interest rates, capital flows, and workplace models, investors, owners, tenants, and developers must understand how these trends are influencing opportunities and risk in the year ahead. Overall Outlook for Commercial […]
Author: Michael J. Willner

Part 2 – Tips Excluded from Income Certain employees and independent contractors may be eligible to deduct tips from their income for tax years 2025 through 2028 under provisions included in the One Big Beautiful Bill. The deduction is capped at $25,000 per year and begins to phase out at $150,000 of modified adjusted gross […]
Author: Scott H. Novak

Part 1 – Overtime Pay and Income Tax Treatment Overview This Firm Insights post summarizes one provision of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” related to the tax treatment of overtime compensation and related employer wage reporting obligations. Overtime Pay and Employee Tax Treatment The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) generally requires that overtime be paid […]
Author: Scott H. Novak

In 2025, New York enacted one of the most consequential updates to its consumer protection framework in decades. The Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable Business Practices Act (FAIR Act) significantly expands the scope and strength of New York’s long-standing consumer protection statute, General Business Law § 349, and alters the compliance landscape for New York […]
Author: Dan Brecher
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!