On December 11, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a formal complaint against Kinetic Content, the production company behind Netflix’s hit reality series Love Is Blind.[i] The complaint alleges that the company misclassified contestants as non-employee “participants” rather than employees, potentially depriving them of crucial labor protections.[ii] This case has the potential to significantly influence the reality TV industry by challenging the longstanding classification of unscripted TV cast members as independent contractors.

One of the primary issues in this complaint revolves around whether Love Is Blind cast members should be classified as “employees” rather than independent “participants.”[iii] Under current labor laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and California’s ABC test (as codified in AB5), determining employee status depends on factors such as control over work, economic dependence, and the nature of the work.[iv] The production company dictated contestants’ schedules, behavior, and environment, making it apparent that they were not truly independent participants. Contestants financially relied on the production for their income during filming, and their roles were essential to the show’s success. Now, reality TV contestants are generally labeled as “participants,” meaning they are not entitled to protections such as minimum wage, overtime pay, health benefits, or the ability to unionize.[v] The NLRB complaint seeks to change this classification and provide Love Is Blind contestants with legal protections like those afforded to traditional employees in the entertainment industry.

The NLRB further asserts that Love Is Blind violated labor laws by imposing unlawful contractual provisions on its contestants, particularly regarding confidentiality and non-compete clauses.[vi] Such clauses are considered unconscionable due to the power imbalance between production companies and contestants, who often lack bargaining power or legal counsel.[vii] Confidentiality clauses prevent contestants from discussing unethical production practices or behind-the-scenes treatment. This deters contestants from reporting unfair labor conditions or exploitation.[viii] Non-compete clauses further restrict contestants by barring media engagements and similar entertainment roles, silencing them even after the show ends. These restrictions discourage contestants from speaking out and shield production companies from scrutiny.

If NLRB’s complaint succeeds, the show’s producers—Kinetic Content and its parent company, Delirium—could be required to reclassify show participants as employees. Additionally, they would have to rescind the allegedly unlawful agreements and provide back pay to former contestants for financial harm suffered due to the misclassification.

While Love Is Blind markets itself as a “social experiment” designed to test whether romantic connections can form without physical attraction, the reality behind the scenes presents concerns over working conditions and fair compensation. Contestants reportedly receive only modest stipends, with no guaranteed winnings—only the opportunity to find love. Former contestant Jeremy Hartwell and his legal team estimated that cast members were effectively paid less than $7 per hour, well below California’s minimum wage.[ix]

Beyond compensation, contestants lack essential workplace protections. As non-employee participants, they are ineligible for paid leave, health insurance, and workplace safety guarantees. Additionally, they cannot unionize, as they are currently not covered under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), which protects the right to collective bargaining.[x] The NLRB complaint seeks to rectify this by arguing that contestants perform work integral to the show’s production and should, therefore, be classified as employees.[xi]

After a labor board regional office finds merit in a complaint, the case is typically adjudicated before an administrative law judge, who will determine whether the employer violated labor laws.[xii] In this case, if the parties fail to reach a settlement, arguments will be presented in April 2025. Any ruling may be appealed first to the national NLRB in Washington, D.C., and potentially to federal courts. If the NLRB rules in favor of the contestants, the decision could allow reality TV contestants to unionize, granting them collective bargaining rights. It could also set industry-wide precedents, prompting major reforms in reality TV contracts. These reforms can require reality TV producers to adhere to wage, hour, and workplace safety laws, forcing networks to reconsider their contractual frameworks and potentially altering the fundamental structure of reality TV production. Experts such as Cathy Creighton from Cornell University’s Industrial and Labor Relations Buffalo Co-Lab suggest that reclassifying reality TV contestants as employees could subject production companies to additional legal obligations, including workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, anti-discrimination protections, OSHA regulations, and tax laws.[xiii] Laura Padin from the National Employment Law Project also argues that such a decision could establish legal standards for unscripted TV talent across various shows.[xiv]

Although recognizing reality TV contestants as employees would pave the way for unionization, several challenges remain. Reality shows vary widely in format; short-term filming schedules for dating shows like Love is Blind differ from long-term casts on shows like The Real Housewives franchise, complicating union membership logistics. Labor protections typically mandate regulations on hours, meal breaks, and working conditions. However, some reality show formats deliberately incorporate physical and psychological hardship as part of the entertainment value. For instance, a show like Survivor, where food deprivation and extreme conditions are inherent, raises questions about how union rules would apply. Would contestants need to waive certain protections to participate? Additionally, if reclassified as employees, contestants may push for royalties, healthcare benefits, and overtime pay. Such negotiations could significantly impact production costs and reshape the business model of reality TV.

The NLRB’s complaint against Love Is Blind represents a critical moment in the ongoing debate over reality TV labor rights. If contestants are legally recognized as employees, the industry could face dramatic changes, including heightened labor protections, increased costs for producers, and potentially even shifts in show formats. While these changes could benefit contestants by ensuring fair pay and working conditions, they may also challenge the existing economic and creative structures of reality TV. As the legal battle unfolds, the entertainment industry will be watching closely. The outcome of this case could redefine the rights of reality TV participants and set lasting precedents for labor protections in unscripted TV. Whether or not Love Is Blind contestants ultimately unionize, the case underscores the growing scrutiny over worker classification in the entertainment industry—and the potential for significant labor reforms in the years to come.

[i] See Daniel Wiessner, Producers of Netflix Hit ‘Love is Blind’ Accused of US Labor Law Violations, Reuters (Dec. 12, 2024, 12:54 PM), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/producers-netflix-hit-love-is-blind-accused-us-labor-law-violations-2024-12-12/.

[ii] See N.L.R.B. v. Delirium TV LLC & Kinetic Content LLC, Consol. Compl., Nos. 18-CA-322098 & 18-CA-329487, at *4 (N.L.R.B. filed Dec. 11, 2024), https://www.nlrb.gov/case/18-CA-329487.

[iii] See id.

[iv] See Julia Jacobs, Labor Board Classifies ‘Love is Blind’ Contestants as Employees, N.Y. Times (Dec. 11, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/11/arts/TV/love-is-blind-nlrb-employees-union.html.

[v] See David Prager, Adriana Levandowski, & April Hua, NLRB Challenges Love is Blind Over Contestant Rights, Nixon Peabody (Dec. 23, 2024), https://www.nixonpeabody.com/insights/alerts/2024/12/23/nlrb-challenges-love-is-blind-over-contestant-rights.

[vi] See N.L.R.B. v. Delirium TV LLC et al., at *5.

[vii] See Jessica E. Riley, Signing in Glitter or Blood? Reality Television Contracts, Unconscionability, and Procedural Fairness, 3 N.Y.U. J. Intell. Prop. & Ent. L. 62, 136–40 (2013) (analyzing how confidentiality and non-compete clauses can prevent contestants from openly discussing their working conditions and the potential for voidability of clauses as a matter of public policy).

[viii] But see Riley, supra note vii, at 135 (“[C]ontestants sign . . . hefty contracts in hopes of an even heftier return makes any unfairness argument weak. They are giving up a substantial number of privileges, but in exchange the studios and networks are risking a lot of money on [them] and the show . . . .”).

[ix] See Emma Bowman, ‘Love is Blind’ Cast Are Employees, Labor Board Says. Could a Reality TV Union be Next?, Npr (Dec. 17, 2024, 5:00 AM), https://www.npr.org/2024/12/17/nx-s1-5229111/love-is-blind-housewives-reality-labor-union.

[x] See 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(d) (West) (defining collective bargaining as the mutual obligation of employers and employee representatives to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, employment conditions, negotiations, and the execution of a written contract).

[xi] See N.L.R.B. v. Delirium TV LLC et al., at *5.

[xii] See Bowman, supra note viiii.

[xiii] See Li Zhou, Love is Blind Just Got Hit with a Federal Labor Complaint. Will it Change Anything?, Vox (Dec. 14, 2024, 6:00 AM), https://www.vox.com/culture/391206/love-is-blind-nlrb-filing-employees.

[xiv] See id.