Court Advances Significant Claim in CAA Vs. Range Case

CAA contended in the lawsuit that Range Media, a management firm, has been operating as an agency

A California state court judge has passed down a pivotal ruling in the case of Creative Artists Agency (CAA) vs. Range Media (Range). In a win for CAA, a major talent agency, the judge advanced the claim that Range, a prominent management firm, can use its business model to sidestep certain laws related to booking work for clients.

Talent agency vs. management firm:

The judge advanced CAA’s claim that, in essence, Range has been operating as a talent agency by booking work for its clients, lessening CAA’s opportunities for revenue.
This claim goes against the Talent Agencies Act, which states that only licensed agents are allowed to book work for talent.
Conversely, managers can have contracts voided and lose commissions for engaging in similar operations.
The law created a loophole that management firms like Range can simply book work for clients with the underlying risk of lawsuits and losses.
This current legal battle could end in a ruling that significantly shakes up how agencies and management firms are allowed to operate in terms of securing work for their clients.
CAA also pointed to Range’s ability to structure deals differently than an agency, encouraging clients to sign with them.
One example is Range offering clients other sources of payouts, like producer fees or back-end credit on their projects, which would not require commission.

Lawsuit background:

CAA initiated the suit against Range in September 2024.
The initial filing centered around Range stealing information from CAA that it could use to help sign clients.
However, the judge dismissed claims from CAA that Range committed tortious interference, stole trade secrets, and illegally acquired confidential information.
Former CAA employees, including Peter Micelli, Dave Bugliari, and Mackenzie Condon Roussos, are now working at Range.
Range has emerged as a major player in the entertainment landscape since its founding in 2020.

What they said:

Orin Snyder and Ilissa Samplin, lawyers for Range: “The ruling confirms what this case is really about: CAA’s attempt to block competition and control the choices of talent. CAA wants to dictate who talent can work with, even if it means attacking managers, advisors, and those who support talent outside their agency.”

Talent agency vs. management firm:

The judge advanced CAA’s claim that, in essence, Range has been operating as a talent agency by booking work for its clients, lessening CAA’s opportunities for revenue.
This claim goes against the Talent Agencies Act, which states that only licensed agents are allowed to book work for talent.
Conversely, managers can have contracts voided and lose commissions for engaging in similar operations.
The law created a loophole that management firms like Range can simply book work for clients with the underlying risk of lawsuits and losses.
This current legal battle could end in a ruling that significantly shakes up how agencies and management firms are allowed to operate in terms of securing work for their clients.
CAA also pointed to Range’s ability to structure deals differently than an agency, encouraging clients to sign with them.
One example is Range offering clients other sources of payouts, like producer fees or back-end credit on their projects, which would not require commission.

Lawsuit background:

CAA initiated the suit against Range in September 2024.
The initial filing centered around Range stealing information from CAA that it could use to help sign clients.
However, the judge dismissed claims from CAA that Range committed tortious interference, stole trade secrets, and illegally acquired confidential information.
Former CAA employees, including Peter Micelli, Dave Bugliari, and Mackenzie Condon Roussos, are now working at Range.
Range has emerged as a major player in the entertainment landscape since its founding in 2020.

What they said:

Orin Snyder and Ilissa Samplin, lawyers for Range: “The ruling confirms what this case is really about: CAA’s attempt to block competition and control the choices of talent. CAA wants to dictate who talent can work with, even if it means attacking managers, advisors, and those who support talent outside their agency.”

Talent agency vs. management firm:

The judge advanced CAA’s claim that, in essence, Range has been operating as a talent agency by booking work for its clients, lessening CAA’s opportunities for revenue.
This claim goes against the Talent Agencies Act, which states that only licensed agents are allowed to book work for talent.
Conversely, managers can have contracts voided and lose commissions for engaging in similar operations.
The law created a loophole that management firms like Range can simply book work for clients with the underlying risk of lawsuits and losses.
This current legal battle could end in a ruling that significantly shakes up how agencies and management firms are allowed to operate in terms of securing work for their clients.
CAA also pointed to Range’s ability to structure deals differently than an agency, encouraging clients to sign with them.
One example is Range offering clients other sources of payouts, like producer fees or back-end credit on their projects, which would not require commission.

Lawsuit background:

CAA initiated the suit against Range in September 2024.
The initial filing centered around Range stealing information from CAA that it could use to help sign clients.
However, the judge dismissed claims from CAA that Range committed tortious interference, stole trade secrets, and illegally acquired confidential information.
Former CAA employees, including Peter Micelli, Dave Bugliari, and Mackenzie Condon Roussos, are now working at Range.
Range has emerged as a major player in the entertainment landscape since its founding in 2020.

What they said:

Orin Snyder and Ilissa Samplin, lawyers for Range: “The ruling confirms what this case is really about: CAA’s attempt to block competition and control the choices of talent. CAA wants to dictate who talent can work with, even if it means attacking managers, advisors, and those who support talent outside their agency.”