By Iain Birrell, Member, Trade Union Law Group, Sanjana Hossain, Employment Rights Lawyer & Jo Seery, Professional Support Lawyer.
Background
Talent Systems Europe Ltd (TSE), trading as Spotlight, operates a subscription-based online directory for actors and performers. Subscribers pay to upload profiles that can be accessed by casting professionals. Equity and three performers brought a High Court claim, arguing that Spotlight was an "employment agency" under section 13(2) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (EAA) and therefore subject to rules restricting the charging of up-front fees.
Equity’s position was that Spotlight’s service was provided “for the purposes of finding persons employment” and so fell within the scope of the Act. Spotlight argued that its service was a marketing tool, not a work-finding one. It had no role in job placement, vetting, or managing employment terms—it simply hosted user-generated profiles for industry professionals to browse.
Key Issues
Talent Systems Europe Ltd (TSE), trading as Spotlight, operates a subscription-based online directory for actors and performers. Subscribers pay to upload profiles that can be accessed by casting professionals. Equity and three performers brought a High Court claim, arguing that Spotlight was an "employment agency" under section 13(2) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (EAA) and therefore subject to rules restricting the charging of up-front fees.
Equity’s position was that Spotlight’s service was provided “for the purposes of finding persons employment” and so fell within the scope of the Act. Spotlight argued that its service was a marketing tool, not a work-finding one. It had no role in job placement, vetting, or managing employment terms—it simply hosted user-generated profiles for industry professionals to browse.
Key Issues
- Definition of “Employment Agency”
The case turned on whether Spotlight’s platform was a regulated “employment agency”. Equity said it was because performers used it to seek work. Spotlight argued that it was not actively involved in finding work or making introductions and merely provided a promotional platform.
- Nature of the Service Provided
The Court accepted that Spotlight did not play any direct role in employment arrangements. It did not vet profiles, recommend performers, or pass information to hirers. Its role was limited to hosting content and charging a subscription for access to the platform.
- Application of the Conduct of Employment Agencies Employment Business (amendment) Regulations 2003
Though not required to rule on fees, the Court went on to find that Spotlight’s charges—if it had been a regulated agency—would probably still have complied with Regulation 26(5)(b)(ii), as they reflected the cost of operating and circulating the directory.
Outcome
The High Court dismissed Equity’s claim, finding that:
Spotlight was not acting “for the purposes of finding persons employment” and so was not an employment agency under the 1973 Act.
Its platform was akin to other online directories like LinkedIn or Checkatrade, providing marketing opportunities but not actively facilitating employment.
Even if regulated, its fees would have been permissible as a fair reflection of directory costs under Regulation 26(5)(b)(ii).
Why This Matters
This judgment provides important clarity on how far employment agency regulations extend in the digital age. For union reps and performers, it confirms that platforms offering self-managed promotional tools are unlikely to be covered by the 1973 Act—unless they actively broker work opportunities.
It also signals that where no middleman role exists, and no part is played in hiring processes or job-matching, directories and similar platforms are more likely to be seen as marketing tools, not employment agencies. This decision may affect how similar platforms operate across the creative industries.
It was an enterprising argument, but ultimately was 'only vaulting ambition, which o’erleaps itself and falls on th’other’ as someone in the Scottish Play once said.
