A Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit Challenging the Constitutionality of the California Talent Agencies Act

Donate online today with
your credit or debit card.



NCOPM Stop TAA Legal Fund

P. O. Box 50008

Henderson, NV 89016-0008

All legal fees and costs for this lawsuit are funded solely by contributions to the NCOPM Stop TAA Legal Fund. Your contribution may be tax deductible as a business expense. Consult your tax adviser. National Conference of Personal Managers Inc. is a Nevada Nonprofit Corporation (Taxpayer ID: 20-5446329).

The California Talent Agencies Act
is unconstitutional, plus unfair
to artists and managers

For decades, celebrities have invoked the California Talent Agencies Act (TAA) to avoid paying personal managers by claiming that their managers had acted as unlicensed talent agents.

Personal managers nationwide have forfeited an estimated $500 million due to either the California Labor Commissioner voiding management contracts and ordering disgorgement of compensation or managers being forced to settle artist disputes rather than face the risks and legal costs of a TAA hearing and subsequent litigation.

TAA controversies have resulted in bankruptcy, foreclosure, divorce, suicide and other personal tragedies for managers and other talent representatives nationwide. Plus, the TAA has had a chilling effect on the willingness of managers to sign younger talent who do not have agency representation. 

With the support of the Music Managers Forum - US and the Talent Managers Association, the National Conference of Personal Managers filed a federal lawsuit in November 2012 requesting that the U. S. District Court of the Central District of California declare that the TAA is unconstitutional and enjoin the California Labor Commissioner from continued enforcement of the TAA, which for decades has violated the constitutional rights of personal managers.

For the past several years, the NCOPM lawsuit has been working its way through the federal court system. Oral arguments are scheduled for April 2017 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Oops! This site has expired.

If you are the site owner, please renew your premium subscription or contact support.