High Court confirms online talent directory is not an employment agency
The High Court has confirmed that a subscription platform where performers publish profiles for casting professionals to view is a marketing tool, not an employment agency.
Background
In the case of Equity and others v Talent Systems Europe Ltd (trading as Spotlight), the performers' union Equity asked the court to treat Spotlight, which is a well-known online directory for actors and other performers, as an employment agency.
Subscribers to Spotlight pay to host profiles (headshots, credits, skills) which casting professionals can search. Equity argued that Spotlight's subscription model amounted to providing services "for the purposes of finding employment" and that the statutory restrictions on charging certain up-front fees therefore applied.
Spotlight resisted the claim. Spotlight submitted, and the court accepted, that its core product is a longstanding directory and marketing platform (originally a printed directory, now an online service) enabling performers to advertise themselves and be searchable by casting professionals. Spotlight emphasised that it does not recommend or vet particular performers to hirers, does not negotiate or finalise engagement terms, does not take commission on placements, and does not provide bespoke human matching or placement services. Spotlight also highlighted its decades-long history as a print and digital directory, during which regulators had never treated it as an employment agency.
What the court decided
The court agreed with Spotlight and dismissed Equity's claim. The court found that the purpose of Spotlight's service was to provide performers with a marketing and promotional tool, not to find them work. The fact that some subscribers obtained work as a result did not change the underlying purpose of Spotlight as a marketing directory.
The court highlighted that the directory was several steps removed from an agency. Search filters, generic casting emails, the option to flag interest in an agent, and access to studios or workshops did not amount to acting as a "middleman" in employment. These were features to help performers present themselves but not to secure work on their behalf.
As the platform was not an employment agency, the agency rules did not apply. For completeness, the judge indicated that, had the agency rules applied, she would have had real difficulty finding the fees were more than a reasonable estimate of publication costs, but the court made no formal finding on fees. The court also noted analogies raised during argument with platforms such as LinkedIn or Checkatrade, which operate as advertising directories rather than as work-finding agencies.
Learning points
The case underlines that a service which only hosts profiles for others to view is unlikely to be an employment agency. Businesses that go further, such as by actively matching candidates, brokering introductions or managing engagements, are more likely to fall within the agency regime and face stricter fee and conduct rules.