UCLA Entertainment Law Review

California has a longstanding issue with the Talent Agency Act, which

states that only a licensed agent may seek out, or procure, employment

for an artist. The TAA has caused major headaches for Hollywood's

personal managers, who find their contracts with artists voided for engaging

in even minor acts of procurement. Many commentators initially

believed that Marathon Entertainment Inc. v. Blasi solved the dilemma.

However, it turns out that the Labor Commissioner, who has

exclusive jurisdiction to hear claims arising under the TAA, continues

to void contracts between California's personal managers and their clients

at an alarming rate. Personal managers disapprove of the Labor

Commissioner's failure to employ the doctrine of severability, as advised

by the Blasi court, to these contracts. In response, the personal

managers recently filed a challenge to the constitutionality of the TAA.

The United States District Court for the Central District of California,

however, dismissed the claim and upheld the constitutionality of the

controversial Act. Because this debate spans over one hundred years,

and the constitutional challenge was unsuccessful, the authors of this

comment advocate a two-fold approach to correcting the dilemma: (1)

place the burden of production in Labor Commissioner hearings on the

artist to prove that the entire manager contract should be voided, and

(2) assess statutory civil penalties to those personal managers who willfully

violate the TAA by procuring employment. The authors of this

Comment argue that the California legislature should consider applying

this approach because it is not only easily adaptable, but also in line

with the true purpose of the TAA.