Spotlight is a casting directory, which matches actors with available jobs. Spotlight claims to have around 90,000 members and 99% of projects in theatre, TV, and film are cast through them.
Equity is a trades union, representing working people as working people. We don’t represent members as consumers or customers of other businesses. However Spotlight isn’t just another business, it is the gateway through which working people access jobs. It is an integral part of how Equity’s members get work. It is in our members’ interests that access to work is fair, and the costs of doing so are borne by the bosses, the producers, who are seeking to hire people.
By definition, those who need money are seeking work and those who have money are seeking to recruit. However Spotlight’s model charges only those seeking work, and only agents or casting directors who are not members of the largest associations for those professions: the PMA and CDG. We believe this is unfair, but we also believe that the rates charged by Spotlight are likely higher than the amount which the law allows them to.
Equity believes that casting directories like Spotlight are covered by the Employment Agencies Act 1973, and the Conduct of Employment Agencies Regulations 2003’. This Act and these Regulations forbid businesses whose purpose is to help people find work from charging the work seeker a fee up front. However, the Regulations exempt certain professions from this rule ‘in respect of the inclusion of information about the work-seeker in a publication’. Most of the professions which are exempted are in the performing arts and entertainment industries, and acting is included.
In short, the law allows casting companies like Spotlight to charge actors a fee to be included in their directory. Equity has a political lobbying campaign to get the government to remove this carve-out. We see no reason why our members should be treated any differently from any other work-seeker.
Equity believes that Spotlight is allowed to charge work seekers a fee for inclusion in their directory under the current law. We want this law changed, but what the current Regulations already do not allow is for Spotlight to charge any amount to its members.
The Regulations state that a business charging work seekers in exempted professions (like actors) for inclusion in their directory must ensure that:
“the fee charged to the work-seeker [must] amount to no more than a reasonable estimate of the cost of production and circulation of the publication attributable to the inclusion of information about that work-seeker in the publication”
Equity wrote to Spotlight to ask for an explanation as to how their fees were calculated with reference to this legal requirement. Spotlight replied saying that they did not believe that their business was covered by these Regulations at all as it was not an employment agency as defined by the Act. Equity disagrees.
In July 2024, eight Equity members, plus the union, started a class action at the High Court, seeking a declaration that Spotlight was indeed covered by this Act and the Regulations. Success would mean that Spotlight would have to show that the fee they charge members amounts only to a reasonable estimate of the cost of the production and circulation of their directory.
The trial was heard in July 2025 and Equity lost. We sought and won the right to Appeal. The case will go to the Court of Appeal before the end of 2026. .
Spotlight’s claimed membership has grown from 60,000 in 2017 to 90,000 in 2024. Their subscription has increased from £150 to £205.80 per year. Using Spotlight’s own figures, this means an increase in income from subscriptions of over 180% in seven years. We also think it unreasonable to assume that the costs of running a digital only service remain the same as when Spotlight still produced physical directories — up until 2016.
Equity does not believe that the law allows Spotlight as a business to charge whatever it likes to its members. We believe that Spotlight has to show that their subscription charges amount to no more than a reasonable estimate of the cost and distribution of the directory. It seems unlikely that costs per member have risen by such a significant amount since 2017.
Further, we are aware that sometimes high profile and well-paid artists are given free Spotlight membership, not on request, but at Spotlight’s pro-active discretion. Spotlight’s partnership with German casting directory Filmmakers.de offers access to the directory at a substantially reduced cost. The costs of other platforms in the UK and globally for performers are significantly lower than Spotlight’s fees. All of these factors mean that it is reasonable for Equity to ask Spotlight for evidence that they are only charging a reasonable estimate of the costs of compiling and distributing the directory to the overwhelming majority of members in the UK- and that they are not subsidising the subscriptions of others, let alone generating profit for Spotlight.
Equity’s 2022-4 Council launched a review of our policy on supporting the law allowing casting directories to charge subscribers in 2023. Spotlight’s decision to launch, and then reverse, a ‘Premiere’ tier of membership in November 2023 also impacted the union’s review of the policy.
It became clear that Spotlight has moved to a different business model to the type used when these regulations were last reviewed. Instead of being a family-owned company, intimately connected to the UK industry, they are now owned by an American company called ‘Talent Systems’. They are taking a much more aggressive and commercial approach with their directories, using Spotlight’s monopoly position as a platform to launch expansion elsewhere in Europe.
Equity has never supported a blanket right for casting directories to charge what they please, that’s why Equity historically supported the exemption – because members were protected by the clause which meant Spotlight and other directories could only charge members a reasonable estimate of the cost of the compilation and distribution of the directory.
Equity’s Council wants to ensure that that the protection which the union believes the law gives to Spotlight members is properly applied, and given due heed as part of any corporate strategy which Talent Systems uses.
No. Equity wants to see Spotlight use the same model as equivalent services in other sectors. This could be by charging employers or casting directors to use the directory.
Equity will always work with Spotlight in good faith where there are issues of concern for members of both organisations. There are huge advantages to having a constructive working relationship with a single organisation who are an integral part of the casting process.
However, we don’t believe that this should mean that Equity should not challenge Spotlight where we believe they are not meeting their obligations to our members.
Spotlight is a business, and they have every right to make decisions about how they run that business, provided they meet their obligations under the law to our members. Equity doesn’t represent our members as consumers or customers of Spotlight who want ‘good value’, we represent them as working people who want fair access to good quality jobs. The current rates of Spotlight subscription, and the carve-out in the law for our industries, affect Equity members’ ability to access good quality work.
The law is silent about the services which Spotlight should provide, and about their quality. However, Equity believes the law is clear that to access the Spotlight directory, members should only be charged a fee which represents their share of a reasonable estimate of the cost of compiling and distributing the directory. It is that legal protection which can be enforced through action.
It is the role of a trades union to protect its members and advance their rights when it comes to casting practices – or as other sectors call it: recruitment practices.
There are eight members of Equity who are the named claimants. Class action only requires some, not all, Spotlight or Equity members to take a claim. At this point, the action is asking for a declaration from the courts that the law applies to Spotlight in the way that Equity believes.
The claimants were approved by Equity Council. Included are the four lay officers of the union (Lynda Rooke, Jackie Clune, Nick Fletcher, and David John) and two Equity councillors who have led the work on changing our policy on casting directories (Jassa Ahluwalia and Hywel Morgan). Two other women members are also in the claimant group: Tonia Daley-Campbell, Midlands Councillor and Honorary Life Member, and Natalie Amber, Chair of Equity’s Deaf and Disabled Members Committee. We want to emphasise that the charge on members of Spotlight is most prohibitive for those who are least represented on our stages and screens: in particular artists of colour, women, and Disabled artists. Council is proud to ensure that the group is gender balanced and includes representation from all these groups.
Equity’s lawyers wrote to Spotlight in January 2024, and Spotlight responded the following month. We wanted time to properly consider their response, and to take further legal advice on potential avenues of challenge.
Spotlight defended the claim and the trial took place in the High Court in July 2025.
The outcome was handed down in September 2025. There was a short window to consider whether to appeal. Equity took legal advice, consulted Equity Council, received the backing of the TUC and applied for leave to appeal. In November 2025, Equity was granted permission to appeal the judgment. The appeal will take place before the end of 2026.
Our courts and legal system have suffered over 14 years of austerity and won’t move as swiftly as we might like. Equity will keep members updated at key moments as soon as we can.
Equity has a legal budget which is used to fight cases for members, whether individual small claims and tribunals, or large cases or class action. It is part of the benefit of being a member of the trade union. Our legal budget is reported in our annual accounts. After losing the High Court case in September 2025, Equity paid Spotlight £275,000 in legal costs, this is reported as an ‘exceptional legal cost’ in the accounts. Our own legal fees for the case to trial were less than a third of this at around £80,000 and are covered in the union’s wider legal budget spanning two years.
Equity has been granted an appeal to be heard in 2026, on grounds that it has “a real prospect of success” and “is of some general importance”. If successful it is possible that we will recoup some or all of the costs. Regardless, Equity is proud to take the case on behalf of thousands of members who feel strongly that it is unfair to have an uncapped fee for a service that is widely considered in the industry as an essential work-finding tool (i.e. an employment website). In 2025, Equity turned a surplus, including all the costs relating to the legal case.
After the High Court judgment in September 2025 (which went against Equity with the judge agreeing with Spotlight that they are not a work seeking or work finding service), Equity settled Spotlight’s claim for costs on payment of a sum of £275,000. Equity’s legal fees were less than a third of this, at around £80,000. Equity has been granted an appeal, on grounds that it has “a real prospect of success” and “is of some general importance” (quotes from the judge). If successful, it is possible that we will recoup some or all of those costs.
Equity’s legal fees for the case to the High Court, heard in July 2025, totalled less than a third of those paid to Spotlight, around £80,000. Equity’s costs were spread over two years and were invoiced as part of our ongoing legal work across the union, not separately. Our legal work includes fighting cases for members from small claims and individual tribunals to specialist legal advice, class actions and more. We are proud to provide legal support for members, whether that be for individuals, groups or as part of collective action.
Spotlight is by far the largest, most widely used, and the most expensive of the casting directories in the UK. They have made recent commercial decisions, and are claiming significant expansion, which means that Equity is concerned that they are charging our members an unreasonable amount. It is clear that the cost of Spotlight is deeply and widely felt by our members, and that the cost of other platforms is a secondary concern to the quality of the work which is advertised on them.
We think that the current law applies equally to all casting directories, so the clarification that Equity is campaigning for applies to would apply to all directories too. Depending on the outcome and as our understanding of the reasonable cost of the directories develops, Equity does not rule out similar action against other directories in future.
The Regulations which mean that casting directories can only charge a reasonable estimate of the cost of the compilation and distribution of the publication also state that the publisher of the directory must allow subscribers, in advance of subscription, access to the “ current edition of the publication, or where the publication exists only in electronic form, give [them] access to a current edition of the publication”
The reason for this is to allow subscribers the ability to assess whether they are actually being charged a reasonable estimate of the cost of the directory. A directory of 90,000 subscribers versus 65,000 subscribers will have different costs, and a different base to share them among. At the moment, all subscribers have to take Spotlight’s word for how many members they have, which, when we believe that they have a legal duty to be transparent as to how they come to their costs, is clearly not satisfactory.
This legal right also means that those looking to enter the directory, and those who are members of it, can assess the market of employment for themselves.
There are a few reasons why Equity isn’t going to set up a directory ourselves.
The biggest reason is an ethical consideration. Casting directories are a fundamental part of how producers find artists. That means they have to work in a way which the producers need. Equity wants to see a world in which producers are paying for the costs of casting, so if we’re providing a directory, that means your union responding to the commercial interests of procures, as well as having a interest in who gets work. Your union should be independent of the interests of the bosses - and not be part of perpetuating problems created by producers in the casting process.
There are significant legal reasons why Equity can’t effectively do it either. The law we believe binds casting directories means that directories should not charge artists more than the reasonable estimated costs of inclusion in and distribution of a directory. Thus, the directory would have to be separate to your monthly subscription, and open to non-members. Equity subscriptions are lower than Spotlight’s without offering a directory, doing so effectively would mean keeping the costs on the workforce, whether they were working or not, through their union subscriptions.
Moreover, trades union membership is ‘special category data’. That means it’s the most sensitive type, equivalent to a medical record; this is to stop employers discriminating against you because you’re standing with your fellow members against injustice at work. Thus, any directory would have to be opt in. It’s not as simple as automatically putting every member in an accessible directory.
With these limits in mind, Equity tried a casting directory of members which was opt-in for over a decade. Less than 1,000 members opted in, and most of their profiles weren’t regularly updated. Essentially entering into competition with established casting directories would cost significant resource and marketing - that’s not our core function. We’re a union, here to represent people against the bosses and make processes fairer.
If it were successful, we have an even bigger problem. By law, you can offer an incentive to be a union member, but not an ‘inducement’. If Equity’s platform was the primary or only way to get work, we’d run foul of the law. Notwithstanding the fact that would would have to offer membership of the directory as separate to union membership, there are other problems even if we made a success of it.
Our members’ subscriptions mostly pay for support for other people. That standing together means we can pay for insurances, legal support, negotiate agreements, give advice, lobby and campaign. Membership of a casting directory is an individual choice, about your individual interests in the face of recruitment/casting controlled by producers. It’s not a collective endeavour but a personal service - simply put, it’s not what unions are about.
By definition, those offering work have money, and those seeking work do not. That’s why the costs of casting should be borne by bosses, not workers. Producers need actors, and they will always need to shape the platforms by which they find them. In short, designing, delivering, and paying for work seeking tools is primarily a problem for engagers, and not our members - however much the industry has hitherto conditioned us to think the opposite. It is always the union’s role to resist the unimaginative casting practices which have defined the industry, by holding the bosses and their platforms to account.