TV Reality Show Arbitration Clause Binds Non-Signing Participant

A teen beauty who slapped The Walt Disney Co. with a $100 million suit claiming she had been depicted as a bratty child on the reality TV show Wife Swap will not have her day in court.

Alicia Guastaferro was 15 when her mother signed a release and waiver for her TV appearance, during which the daughter made the comment that she felt “sorry for people who aren't as gorgeous as me.” Even though Guastaferro did not execute the release, Acting New York County Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla nonetheless held that she was bound by its arbitration clause. Guastaferro v. The Walt Disney Co., 600721/2010.

Billed as a non-scripted reality show, Wife Swap featured two families with women who held markedly different values and parenting styles. The women would trade places and impose their household rules on the other family. The last episode of Wife Swap aired on ABC in 2009.

Guastaferro's mother, Karen, was approached by producers in 2007 about appearing on the show. Karen Guastaferro signed a release and waiver on behalf of her daughter. The agreement had a binding arbitration clause that applied to any disputes arising from Alicia Guastaferro's appearance.

Alicia Guastaferro alleged that before she went on the show, she underwent a psychological test that was used to plan the episode and “profit from exploiting” her. Alicia, who said the show was scripted, said she was instructed to act “a little more spoiled” or “bratty.” On one occasion, she was told to unwrap a present under a Christmas tree and tell viewers she received a present every day.

She also said she was “forced” to repeat scripted lines, including, “I am the most popular girl in school,” and “I feel sorry for people who aren't as gorgeous as me.” Producers allegedly instructed her to say she spent $100,000 on beauty pageants and to wear a pageant dress during a promotional spot on The Tyra Banks Show.

Alicia Guastaferro and her family received $20,000 for appearing on Wife Swap. After the episode aired, Alicia claims she was subject to ridicule, including threats of gang rape and murder. Last year, she filed suit in New York against Walt Disney, American Broadcasting Cos. Inc., RDF Media USA Inc. and RDF Media Ltd. Her suit alleged defamation, unjust enrichment, violations of the labor law and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She also claimed the defendants' violated provisions of the Arts and Cultural Affairs Law. She said she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, panic attacks and depression as a result of her appearance.

The defendants moved to compel arbitration, saying each of Alicia Guastaferro's claims was subject to the arbitration clause. Alicia countered that she was not bound by the agreement because she did not personally sign it and because the defendants failed to obtain court approval of the release and waiver.

Justice Scarpulla disagreed, noting: “If arbitration is mandatory, the obligation to arbitrate extends not only to the contract's signatories, but also to those who are expressly contemplated within the agreement and who by their actions consented to it.”

“When Karen Guastaferro signed the release and waiver agreement on [Alicia] Guastaferro's behalf, she effectively bound [Alicia] Guastaferro to the arbitration clause contained therein,” the judge wrote. Justice Scarpulla did observe that the release and waiver might be voidable as a matter of law under '35.03(1) of the N.Y. Arts and Cultural Affairs Laws. The statute provides that a contract made by an infant or the parent or guardian of an infant under which the infant is to engage in performing arts or participate in professional sports may be approved by the surrogate's court or a county supreme court. If a contract is approved, the infant cannot disaffirm the agreement on grounds of infancy or “assert that the parent or guardian lacked the authority” to enter into the pact.

However, Justice Scarpulla said it was up to the arbitrator to decide whether to void the agreement. “Because of the absence of the court approval of the release and waiver agreement under the Arts and Cultural Affairs Law '35.01(3), [Alicia] Guastaferro is not foreclosed from having the arbitrator review the reasonableness of the agreement her mother executed,” the judge wrote.

David S. Ratner, a partner in New York City's Morelli Ratner, represented Alicia Guastaferro. He said he would appeal the ruling. “We believe that Judge Scarpulla has not properly analyzed the law in this area” and has given short shrift to the court's responsibility to protect the rights of minors, he said in an interview.

Nathan E. Siegel, a partner in the New York City and Washington, DC, offices of Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, represented the defendants.

A teen beauty who slapped The Walt Disney Co. with a $100 million suit claiming she had been depicted as a bratty child on the reality TV show Wife Swap will not have her day in court.

Alicia Guastaferro was 15 when her mother signed a release and waiver for her TV appearance, during which the daughter made the comment that she felt “sorry for people who aren't as gorgeous as me.” Even though Guastaferro did not execute the release, Acting New York County Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla nonetheless held that she was bound by its arbitration clause. Guastaferro v. The Walt Disney Co., 600721/2010.

Billed as a non-scripted reality show, Wife Swap featured two families with women who held markedly different values and parenting styles. The women would trade places and impose their household rules on the other family. The last episode of Wife Swap aired on ABC in 2009.

Guastaferro's mother, Karen, was approached by producers in 2007 about appearing on the show. Karen Guastaferro signed a release and waiver on behalf of her daughter. The agreement had a binding arbitration clause that applied to any disputes arising from Alicia Guastaferro's appearance.

Alicia Guastaferro alleged that before she went on the show, she underwent a psychological test that was used to plan the episode and “profit from exploiting” her. Alicia, who said the show was scripted, said she was instructed to act “a little more spoiled” or “bratty.” On one occasion, she was told to unwrap a present under a Christmas tree and tell viewers she received a present every day.

She also said she was “forced” to repeat scripted lines, including, “I am the most popular girl in school,” and “I feel sorry for people who aren't as gorgeous as me.” Producers allegedly instructed her to say she spent $100,000 on beauty pageants and to wear a pageant dress during a promotional spot on The Tyra Banks Show.

Alicia Guastaferro and her family received $20,000 for appearing on Wife Swap. After the episode aired, Alicia claims she was subject to ridicule, including threats of gang rape and murder. Last year, she filed suit in New York against Walt Disney, American Broadcasting Cos. Inc., RDF Media USA Inc. and RDF Media Ltd. Her suit alleged defamation, unjust enrichment, violations of the labor law and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She also claimed the defendants' violated provisions of the Arts and Cultural Affairs Law. She said she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, panic attacks and depression as a result of her appearance.

The defendants moved to compel arbitration, saying each of Alicia Guastaferro's claims was subject to the arbitration clause. Alicia countered that she was not bound by the agreement because she did not personally sign it and because the defendants failed to obtain court approval of the release and waiver.

Justice Scarpulla disagreed, noting: “If arbitration is mandatory, the obligation to arbitrate extends not only to the contract's signatories, but also to those who are expressly contemplated within the agreement and who by their actions consented to it.”

“When Karen Guastaferro signed the release and waiver agreement on [Alicia] Guastaferro's behalf, she effectively bound [Alicia] Guastaferro to the arbitration clause contained therein,” the judge wrote. Justice Scarpulla did observe that the release and waiver might be voidable as a matter of law under '35.03(1) of the N.Y. Arts and Cultural Affairs Laws. The statute provides that a contract made by an infant or the parent or guardian of an infant under which the infant is to engage in performing arts or participate in professional sports may be approved by the surrogate's court or a county supreme court. If a contract is approved, the infant cannot disaffirm the agreement on grounds of infancy or “assert that the parent or guardian lacked the authority” to enter into the pact.

However, Justice Scarpulla said it was up to the arbitrator to decide whether to void the agreement. “Because of the absence of the court approval of the release and waiver agreement under the Arts and Cultural Affairs Law '35.01(3), [Alicia] Guastaferro is not foreclosed from having the arbitrator review the reasonableness of the agreement her mother executed,” the judge wrote.

David S. Ratner, a partner in New York City's Morelli Ratner, represented Alicia Guastaferro. He said he would appeal the ruling. “We believe that Judge Scarpulla has not properly analyzed the law in this area” and has given short shrift to the court's responsibility to protect the rights of minors, he said in an interview.

Nathan E. Siegel, a partner in the New York City and Washington, DC, offices of Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, represented the defendants.