Spotlight no more than a directory, barrister insists at High Court hearing

In a hearing in front of Justice Catherine Howells, Equity and Spotlight met to present their sides of an almost two-year dispute over Spotlight’s business model, and specifically the question of how its set-up relates to the Employment Agencies Act of 1973.

Since January 2024, Equity has been rallying support for its "Tax on Hope" campaign, an action aimed at calling attention to what it claims are Spotlight’s rising subscription fees for actors. 

A year ago, the union escalated its campaign by filing class action papers against its adversary, with Equity’s barristers seeking a declaration by a judge that Spotlight operates as an employment agency.

Equity believes that if that declaration was granted, Spotlight would be subject to legislation governing how employment agencies charge jobseekers; specifically, that the site would be made to show the rates it charges members amount to "no more than a reasonable estimate" of the cost of production and circulation of its directory. 

In a hearing held on July 16, Equity’s representative, Rebecca Tuck KC, told the court: "I say it doesn’t matter what they call themselves, it matters what they are."

Tuck added: "It is accepted by all parties that Spotlight’s key offering is its directory. The raison d’être of Spotlight is assisting subscribers in attaining employment... I quoted from the website of Spotlight, which stated that 99% of UK productions were cast by Spotlight in 2023.

"[Spotlight managing director] Mr [Matt] Hood says this is the number of productions, not roles cast, and it’s just TV production in the UK, it doesn’t extend to film and theatre. Whatever the scope of it, the reason it’s front and centre on their website is that it’s important... People pay [for] Spotlight [membership] because it can and does lead to their employment."

Citing the directory’s 99,000 members, Tuck’s argument pointed to the fact that Spotlight requires actors looking to sign up to conform to certain criteria, including having at least one featured role with an Equity or equivalent union contract or two contracted professional performance credits.

In addition, Tuck put forth that performers received tailored emails highlighting available roles according to the qualities listed on their profile – with both examples being used to suggest that Spotlight therefore was a work-finding service.

"It is clear that the provision of information in these directories to potential hirers is a work-finding service being offered by an employment agency," Tuck said.

But Mulcahy, acting for Spotlight, responded: "We don’t take photos and we don’t take [acting] reels. And nothing that we do matches performers with employers. We are a directory."

Mulcahy added: "Despite all the new tech, we are still the same as we were back in 1927."

She argued that in the entertainment industry "it’s the role of agents to find work for the performers, in return for which, the agent will typically take commission based on any work secured".

Mulcahy accused Equity of targeting Spotlight when other directories, such as Mandy, also operate as a talent home for actors and creative professionals, and pointed towards a previously healthy relationship between both parties – including instances in recent years where attempts to update employment law have seen Equity defend Spotlight’s status as a directory, rather than a work-finding agency, as recently as 2010.

"Coming back to the relationship between Equity and Spotlight, that has been a positive one until recently. Equity had always been aligned with Spotlight’s position that it is not [an employment agency]," she said. 

The barrister insisted that Spotlight’s stance was that it charged "only modest fees", noting that any increases in recent years had come in below the inflation rate for the past decade.

Mulcahy concluded: "If we did what they say we do, we could charge commission [for helping actors find roles]... but we don’t do that, because we’re not an agency.

"We are a repository of performers’ contact information and CVs, and that is our role."

The hearing, which had been expected to take place over two days, concluded on its first date of appearance in court.

Justice Howells told attendees she could not say when her decision would be completed due to the amount of information "in consideration", but added that she hoped to provide a judgement "as soon as possible, over the next couple of weeks".