By Harshitha Gogineni
It’s a tale as old as time. Every good story needs an antagonist, and one calculated episode edit later, reality television finds itself a new villain to capitalize on overnight. Viewers largely understand that what they see on reality television is a carefully curated production, and yet the onslaught of memes, tweets, and reddit posts seems to bring viewers joy like no other. But what does this mean for the participants being vilified? Some welcome the infamy while others regret their decisions for years to come.[1]
Whether reality television participants like the edit they get or not, they are often stuck with the consequences as a result of the consent clauses in the contracts they sign. Reality television contracts are often contracts of adhesion[2] that include broad waivers allowing the production team to control all aspects of the filming and editing processes.[3] In addition, reality television contracts do not enjoy the same benefit of union collective bargaining agreements that provide baselines in scripted television, which leads producers and networks to write contracts as comprehensively as possible, yielding ninety page contracts in some cases.[4] In addition to liability releases, privacy waivers, and standard danger warnings, these contracts typically also include releases from reputational damage and embarrassing depictions.[5] An example of the language from one such contract is as follows:
I further understand that my appearance, depiction, and/or portrayal in or in connection with the Program, and my actions and the actions of others displayed in or in connection with the Program, may be disparaging, defamatory, embarrassing or of an otherwise unfavorable nature, and may expose me to public ridicule, humiliation or condemnation. I acknowledge and agree that Producer shall have, in it’s sole discretion and editorial control, the right to include any such information and any such appearance, depiction, portrayal, actions and statements in and in connection with the Program. I understand and acknowledge that while such conduct might otherwise constitute a tort. I have freely and knowingly consented to such conduct and waive any action against Producer.[6]
The consent and waiver clauses in these contracts are often enforceable even if participants bring legal claims such as defamation and false light. This enforcement is grounded, in part, on a strong policy to protect the freedom to contract and the high bar for unconscionability. Even though contracts of adhesion frequently result from vastly unequal bargaining power, a majority of courts only find them to be unconscionable if there is also substantive unconscionability in the terms of the agreement.[7] Because these kinds of waiver provisions have become standard in reality television contracts, they do not rise to the requisite level of “shock[ing] the conscience.”[8] As a result, participants who later feel misrepresented or harmed by their portrayal generally face significant legal obstacles in challenging these provisions. Alternative legal remedies, such as claims for breach of privacy or misrepresentation, also rarely provide better protection, as courts tend to defer to the explicit terms of the contract that grant broad rights to the producers.
This raises important questions about the disconnect between legal and meaningful consent in reality television contracts. Participants often sign under pressure, without negotiation, and with limited understanding, while courts uphold these agreements, pointing to the consent and waiver clauses. Such consent is largely formal and highlights an ethical tension between industry practices and participants’ autonomy and genuinely informed agreement.
Harshitha Gogineni is a second-year law student from Guam. She graduated from Cornell University with a Bachelor of Science and Master of Engineering in Civil Engineering. She will be returning to K&L Gates as a 2026 summer associate in Nashville and plans to work in transactional law after graduation.
[1] While some reality television participants have successfully converted their infamy into lucrative careers, some of the negative consequences of becoming a victim of the villain edit include receiving hate mail and death threats, and in more extreme cases, the aftereffects have contributed to some participants committing suicide. Annabelle Lee, What Happens to Reality TV Stars When the Cameras Stop Rolling, Cosmopolitan (Mar. 18, 2019), https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a21760683/life-after-reality-tv/; Jake Langguth, After the Torch is Snuffed: The Ethics of Reality TV Editing, Medium (Apr. 28, 2021), https://jlangguth2.medium.com/after-the-torch-is-snuffed-the-ethics-of-reality-tv-editing-a5e0021d5450.
[2] Contracts of adhesion result when one party has “such disproportionate bargaining power that the party of weaker bargaining strength could not have negotiated for variations in the terms” of the contract. Legal Information Institute, Adhesion Contract (Contract of Adhesion), Cornell University, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_(contract_of_adhesion) (last visited Jan. 25, 2026).
[3] Catherine Riley, Signing in Glitter or Blood?: Unconscionability and Reality Television Contracts, 3 N.Y.U. J. Intell. Prop. & Ent. L. 106, 123 (2014).
[4] Id. at 123-24.
[5] Id. at 124.
[6] Id. at 127.
[7] Colleen McCullough, Unconscionability as a Coherent Legal Concept, 164 U. Pa. L. Rev. 779, 782 (2016).
[8] Collier Curran, The Grim Reality Behind Reality TV: The Legal Rights of Contestants, Colum. J. L. & Arts (Nov. 12, 2023), https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/lawandarts/announcement/view/666; Riley, supra note 3, at 138-39.