Stephen Richardson has become the latest reality television contestant to challenge the entertainment industry’s treatment of participants, filing a proposed class action lawsuit against Netflix and the producers of “Love Is Blind” that could reshape how streaming platforms compensate their unscripted talent.
The seventh-season contestant filed suit in California’s superior court on Monday, Sept. 15, targeting Netflix alongside production companies Kinetic Content and Delirium TV, according to Variety.
No Love Lost For Netflix
Richardson’s legal action alleges that contestants were systematically denied wages and subjected to exploitative working conditions that violated California labor laws. The complaint seeks to represent participants from multiple seasons of the popular dating series, potentially expanding to include contestants from other reality television productions.
“I believe Delirium is trying to silence the abuse that occurs behind the cameras and ruin me for telling the truth,” fellow contestant Renee Poche told the publication earlier this year. Poche previously filed her own lawsuit against the series makers, claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress and labor code violations.
Richardson’s filing centers on the fundamental question of worker classification within reality television.
The lawsuit argues that contestants were deliberately misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees, despite what the complaint describes as extensive control over their daily activities.
According to the legal documents reviewed by Entertainment Weekly, production companies maintained “complete domination over their time, schedule, and their ability to eat, drink, and sleep, and communicate with the outside world during the period of employment.”
The allegations paint a concerning picture of conditions during filming.
Contestants reportedly had their identification documents, wallets, phones, and credit cards confiscated upon arrival at the hotel where cast members resided. Hotel staff allegedly received explicit instructions not to provide food to participants, effectively trapping them without means to leave or sustain themselves independently.
Perhaps most troubling are the claims regarding the show’s approach to alcohol consumption. The lawsuit alleges that production deliberately encouraged drinking throughout filming while restricting access to food and water.
Contestants were reportedly provided with “alcoholic beverages, soft drinks, energy drinks, and mixers,” while hydrating options remained available only during limited daytime hours. This strategy allegedly aimed to “maintain a heightened degree of control and direct the conduct of the Cast into making manipulated decisions for the benefit of the shows’ entertainment value.”
These working conditions, Richardson argues, should have entitled participants to minimum wage protections and overtime compensation under California employment law. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, recognition of the proposed class action status, and acknowledgment that current food and alcohol practices violate labor regulations.
The legal challenge extends beyond Richardson’s individual experience, proposing to represent contestants from seasons six through nine of “Love Is Blind.” The scope could potentially broaden to include participants from other reality dating series operating under similar production models. This expansion reflects growing scrutiny of an industry that has historically operated with minimal regulatory oversight.
The legal challenge extends beyond Richardson’s individual experience, proposing to represent contestants from seasons six through nine of “Love Is Blind,” as reported by Entertainment Weekly. The scope could potentially broaden to include participants from other reality dating series operating under similar production models.
Richardson’s case follows a pattern of similar allegations from past contestants. Season 2 participant Jeremy Hartwell filed a comparable lawsuit in 2022, claiming contestants endured 20-hour shooting days, sleep deprivation, and isolation while receiving flat stipends far below minimum wage. Hartwell’s complaint targeted the same defendants and raised nearly identical concerns about misclassification and labor law violations.
The National Labor Relations Board has also received complaints from former contestants, including Renee Poche and Nicholas Thompson, according to CNN, alleging production companies deliberately misclassified cast members as “participants” rather than employees to circumvent labor protections. These filings highlight how non-disclosure agreements have suppressed discussion of working conditions.
Richardson faces financial pressure from his participation, having been compelled to sign a nondisclosure agreement that reportedly carries penalties of approximately $97,529.77. This punitive structure mirrors other contestants’ experiences when attempting to speak publicly.
Netflix and Kinetic Content have not responded to requests for comment when reached out to by both publications. The platform’s continued investment in unscripted content makes the case significant for industry practices.
Richardson’s action ultimately challenges the economics of reality television, questioning whether the model adequately compensates participants for profitable entertainment. As streaming platforms expand reality programming, this wave of litigation could set precedents for contestant rights and compensation standards across the industry.
