UTA, ICM Respond To TV ‘Cartel’ Suit

UTA’s response dismisses the boutique agency’s antitrust claims as well as allegations that UTA poached “exclusive” clients. “Plaintiff’s concern is not the welfare of directors and other artists seeking representation, who remain free as ever to choose between representation by large agencies, such as UTA, and smaller agencies, such as Plaintiff,” the motion noted, according to court documents obtained by Deadline Hollywood.

“Instead, Plaintiff’s concern is over its ability to maintain its own clients –not by offering superior service or competitive prices, but by foreclosing UTA and other large agencies from access to them.

“The ‘poaching’ Plaintiff bemoans is, in fact, perfectly legitimate behavior evidencing healthy and vigorous competition among talent agencies,” the motion added. Attorneys for ICM used similar language in their response to Lenhoff’s complaint, also obtained by Deadline. “Plaintiff attempts to conjure a Section 1 antitrust conspiracy claim from three baseless hypotheses, each of which takes the catch phrase ‘conspiracy theory’ to new heights since they are based on nothing more than rank speculation,” they wrote.

“Despite multiple attempts to amend its pleading, there is no factual allegation in the SAC that remotely suggests a causal link between Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, i.e., the departure of Clients #1 and #2, and the various antitrust conspiracies that Plaintiff has concocted.”

Both UTA and ICM requested their motions to dismiss the SAC be addressed during a Dec. 21 hearing in Los Angeles. In response, Lenhoff & Lenhoff told the site the agency believes its “Sherman Antitrust claim is seeding a case that will ultimately prevail, whether in the present venue or on appeal. “We’ve already prevailed on the Unfair Competition Claim, and we are confident that our Sherman Antitrust claim, along with the Interference claims, will withstand defendants’ motions to dismiss.

Ultimately, this is a test case that may ultimately lead to regulation and be a game changer for the industry.” The agency’s Oct. 2 filing did not name WME or CAA as defendants, but alleged in its summary that “Defendants UTA and ICM have agreed and conspired with WME and CAA to form a ‘cartel’ or oligopoly” in the market.”

The complaint suggested that because the major agencies “stockpile talent, as well as exercise control over the development, production, financing, distribution, advertising and even the technology for content delivery to the consumer, they have morphed into, Plaintiff alleges, producers, de-facto employers, apex predators and ‘UBER AGENCIES.” A response from Lenhoff & Lenhoff is expected in court by Nov. 23, and a reply from defendants by Dec. 7, Deadline said.