Chaos has always been what drives reality TV. Cast members fight, cheat, gossip and lie, all in the name of satisfying viewer appetite for drama. But now it’s this chaos that could ultimately be the reason reality TV as we know it could be over.
Former cast members from some of the world’s biggest reality shows, including Love Is Blind and Vanderpump Rules, have recently launched lawsuits against their respective production companies, citing discrimination, sexual harassment, and concerns they were being targeted for speaking out. The suits relate to behaviour that is allegedly encouraged by producers to heighten drama and chaos. As a result, they could fundamentally transform how reality TV is made, and what it looks like on our screens.
The production company behind the mammoth Real Housewives franchise has come under fire for its treatment of some reality stars.Credit: Bravo
At the centre of this legal crisis is Bravo, a US television network responsible for the immensely popular Real Housewives franchise. Caroline Manzo, who was on the Morocco edition of The Real Housewives: Ultimate Girls Trip, sued Bravo and its affiliated companies in January for allegedly encouraging a fellow cast member to sexually assault her. She also accused the production company of plying the cast with alcohol, causing them to “become severely intoxicated”. Bravo denies the allegations and is attempting to have the case dismissed.
Meanwhile, Leah McSweeney, who was on the 12th and 13th seasons of The Real Housewives of New York, sued Bravo in February, claiming the company had encouraged her to relapse while filming the show despite having been aware of her previous struggles with alcoholism (which is considered a disability under US federal discrimination laws). She further alleged she was removed from the cast after she made complaints. Bravo has denied all claims against it.
Bravo is not the only reality production company to come under fire. Two former Love Island USA staffers sued ITV and NBCUniversal last year for allegedly mistreating its contestants and racially discriminating against them during the fourth season. ITV America denied the allegations.
Netflix’s Love is Blind has also been at the centre of multiple suits. Season 5 participant Tran Dang claimed producers did not intervene when she was allegedly sexually assaulted by her then fiance. The ex-fiance denied the allegations, and the show’s creator said Dang had not made any complaints.
These lawsuits, which are historically rare in an industry where participants lack power and are seen as easily replaceable, have their genesis in last year’s moment of reckoning for reality TV.
Amid the Hollywood writers’ and actors’ strikes, former Real Housewives of New York star Bethenny Frankel began calling for a union for reality stars, seeking the kind of protection and rights Hollywood actors receive. She also sent a letter to NBCUniversal and Bravo, accusing the companies of “mentally, physically and financially victimising” reality cast members. Notably, Frankel did not sue any production company. However, her ongoing arguments about pay disparity and unsafe working conditions have provided a framework for other aggrieved reality stars.
Australia’s reality TV industry has experienced similar accusations. In 2019, former House Rules contestant Nicole Prince claimed she was harassed and bullied while on the show – alleging producers encouraged it. The NSW Workers Compensation Commission later ruled in favour of Prince, determining she was the employee of the production company and therefore entitled to certain protections.
Nicole Prince was awarded workers’ compensation for the trauma suffered as a reality TV ‘villain’.Credit: Channel Seven
Benjamin Norris, who won Big Brother in 2012, says Australian production companies do generally appear more conscious of exploitation and mistreatment than US counterparts. However, mental health management continues to be a problem, and he believes a written industry standard is required to ensure all companies abide by streamlined policies.
“On Big Brother, I was starved for 87 days and lost a huge amount of weight. I didn’t know that was a tactic to make us more on edge to create better content,” he says. “Most of these participants are being offered minimum wage … The lifespan of relevance is almost two minutes of fame. You are chewed up and spat out and that can be really frightening.”
Loading
Norris hopes legal action in the US could encourage local production companies to consider strengthening their mandatory mental health plans, including meetings with psychologists for contestants at all times during production and for six months afterwards.
Companies like EndemolShine, ITV and Warner Bros have health and wellbeing assistance. However, Norris says having a psychologist who isn’t on the company’s payroll is important.
“My partner thinks I should get paid for the amount of time I spend talking to reality TV alumni on the phone – talking them off the ledge and helping them remember they’re more than what people think of them,” he says. “The fact that I do this every day is a sign that there’s more work to be done in this space.”
Behavioural and cultural economist and former actor Dr Meg Elkins agrees, noting how some Australian reality shows appear to be becoming more extreme – seemingly favouring content over wellbeing.
“We’re seeing an escalation of contestants put in conflict situations with levels of deprivation that are going to bring out behaviour that could potentially look damaging for them long-term. Fear and anger drive engagement more than love.” Elkins says. “And the contracts are often so binding, they allow for very little recourse.”
Elkins points to the European industry as a possible example for how to implement better safeguards for reality stars. Following the suicide of former Love Island contestant Mike Thalassitis in 2019, the UK’s media regulator ruled that all British shows would be explicitly required to protect the mental health and wellbeing of their cast members.
Loading
Further, the Swedish version of MAFS often allows participants to watch their scenes when the program is cut and offer feedback. Elkins says this kind of “right of reply” could significantly reduce the number of reality stars who have had their reputations damaged by a “villain edit”.
Employment lawyer El Leverington, who works for Australian firm Slater and Gordon, says all people who provide some kind of service, including reality entertainment, deserve to be treated with respect and afforded a safe workplace.
“Sure, they may have signed up for the opportunity to win money or love, and they may have some amazing experiences along the way. But that’s not an acceptable basis for them to not be treated respectfully and to be kept safe,” she says.
Though the results of the US lawsuits will not be binding in Australia, Leverington says they could succeed in shifting the conversation around reality TV more broadly and spark similar claims here.
“It’s possible that some [contestants] have raised concerns, but it’s never played out in the public forum, and they have agreed not to speak about it publicly,” she says. “But given how public the US lawsuits are, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone who has been sitting with some sort of issue, or is currently experiencing one, might see that and try and have a go.”