I see ‘payday’ lending and ‘rental deposits’ on separate documents happening very quickly. Agents will set up subsidiary corps to issue docs and will use docs for no-show judgements and/or write off loses as ‘bad debt’ if they have a decent tax preparer.

With a similar case pending it would surprise me if this was appealed because it opens too many cans of worms. As much as agents won’t like this situation, it as one more step to legitimizing porn (sex-work) as a regulated industry. Appealing this agents will absolutely lose on the fiscal aspect and risk losing the current status quo on the workplace safety issues.

The issue here seems to be that LA Direct cut a corner vis-à-vis recoupment, not that the underlying debts for rent were improper. As for the debt re: promotional photographs, I don’t think this decision has any basis in the reality of how talent agencies operate, as Hay stated above.

As the bard wrote, “Neither a borrower nor a lender be”.

Isn’t that what Lords did to their serfs in the middle ages to keep them poor and in debt to the Lord of the land?

On the fiscal side we had some great debates here a couple years ago about the need for agents to clearly distinguish roles and fees for acting as banker, landlord etc as distinctly separate from the ‘commissioner approved agency contract’

“Having a degree of control of a performer’s earnings offers the agency leverage, or the ability to offset the performer’s running debt. It is in fact common practice for agents to find ways to offset advances and debts.”

That quote is the essence of the issue. Courts will tell them to pound sand…here are some forms to file case in small claims court…good luck serving your debtor.