Is the 'No-Dating Clause' for Idols Legally Valid? Introducing Two Court Cases

In the relationships between YouTuber agencies and YouTubers, or VTuber employers and voice actors, there are cases where contracts are concluded that include clauses restricting the private lives of YouTubers and voice actors.

However, are such clauses that restrict private life valid in the first place? This issue seems to have traditionally been a problem in the contractual relationships between talent agencies and entertainers.

In recent years, we often see cases where contracts are concluded that include a “no-dating clause” for idols.

In this article, based on court cases where damage claims based on the “no-dating clause” were disputed, we will explain the validity of such clauses as preliminary knowledge for considering the contract content for YouTubers and voice actors.

The Origin of the Fame of the “Love Ban Clause” for Idols

In February 2021, an article on “Bunshun Online” reported that a female member (24) of the idol group Hello! Project was in a romantic relationship with a singer-songwriter. Due to her lack of awareness as a member, she was forced to end her activities with the group.

The individual herself apologized, saying, “I have betrayed the feelings of many people,” and announced her withdrawal from the group.

Violations of the “love ban” for idols often become a topic of discussion, but it is not clear whether there is a love ban clause in Hello! Project.

Fortunately, it seems that this time there was no trouble such as damages, but it can be said that it is easy to become a source of trouble when management companies spend a large amount of money on idol development and other activities.

Therefore, in the following, we will explain how legal responsibility is determined when a lawsuit arises due to a violation of the love ban clause for idols, based on two court precedents.

Case Study 1: An Idol Found Liable for Damages for Violating a No-Dating Clause

The first case involves a 17-year-old former female member of an idol group who was accused of violating a clause prohibiting dating. The management company sought damages from the young woman for this violation.

Case Overview

The defendant entered into an exclusive contract with the plaintiff’s management company in March 2013. The contract stipulated that if it was revealed that the defendant had intimate interactions or relationships with fans, not only could the contract be terminated, but damages could also be claimed.

At the time of signing the exclusive contract, the defendant received a set of “Artist Regulations” from the plaintiff. These regulations included the so-called “Love Ban Clause” as follows:

• We strictly prohibit hanging out alone with male friends in private life, and taking photos together (including photo booths). If this is discovered, we will immediately suspend your entertainment activities and terminate your contract.
• If you have released a CD, you will be required to buy back any remaining stock.
• We prohibit dating the opposite sex. If your relationship is revealed to fans or the media, it will be irreversible and cause trouble for the agency and other unit members.

Despite having agreed to these terms, in early October of the same year, the defendant was invited by a man claiming to be a fan, and they went to a love hotel together. The man took a photo of them together in the hotel room through a mirror (the incident).

Subsequently, another member of the group obtained this photo via the fan. The plaintiff company learned of the defendant’s incident when this member showed them the photo. As a result, the group was abruptly disbanded on October 16 of the same year.

Main Issues

In this case, the main issues in dispute were primarily the following three points:

1. Whether the relationship in question constitutes a breach of contract and/or tort
2. The existence and amount of damages
3. The causal relationship between the relationship in question and the damages

Let’s take a look at the court’s judgment on each of these issues below.

Court Decision

1. The relationship in question constitutes a breach of contract and an illegal act

In this case, the first point of contention was whether the defendant was contractually liable, given that the defendant herself did not sign or seal the contract containing the no-dating clause, but her mother did. The court made the following ruling on this matter:

“…According to the plaintiff’s testimony, it can be confirmed that the plaintiff explained the contents of the contract to the defendant (the plaintiff’s testimony is credible, considering that as the representative director of the plaintiff, he had a motive to make the defendant, who was starting her activities as an idol, aware of the contents of the contract, and that the defendant herself was aware of the fact that she should not be found to be close to fans and that the contract contained a no-dating clause. The defendant claims that she did not receive an explanation of the contract, but this cannot be adopted in light of the above confirmation. Therefore, it can be easily confirmed that the defendant, in her activities in the group, received an explanation of the no-dating clause and was aware of its contents.”

Tokyo District Court, September 18, 2015 (2015)

In other words, even if the idol herself did not sign or seal the contract, if she had the opportunity to go over the contents of the contract and was aware of the existence of the no-dating clause, she would naturally bear the contractual responsibility that includes the no-dating clause.

Furthermore, in this case, whether the no-dating clause had become a dead letter was also a point of contention, but the court made the following ruling on this point:

“Indeed, it can be acknowledged that there were members who continued to date even after the start of the group’s activities, but they were hiding the fact of their relationships from the plaintiffs, and considering that the said members were cooperative in securing the other party and collecting photos when they were sexually harassed by fans, it can be confirmed that the plaintiffs did not take any action, so it cannot be said that the no-dating clause had become a dead letter. Therefore, the defendant’s relationship constitutes a breach of contract. In addition, while it is true, as the defendants point out, that going to a hotel with a person of the opposite sex does not immediately constitute an illegal act, the defendant was under contract and was active as an idol at the time, and it was easily foreseeable that if the relationship came to light, it would affect the group’s activities and could cause damage to the plaintiffs. Therefore, it is clear that the defendant’s act of engaging in the relationship constitutes a tort against the plaintiffs.”

ibid.

In other words, even if other members are violating the no-dating rule and the management company is aware of this fact and yet does not take any disciplinary action, it does not immediately mean that they are tacitly allowing dating.

2. Lost profits are recognized as damages, but the defendant is also at fault

In this case, although the plaintiff’s claim for damages due to defamation was not recognized because the fact of the relationship did not become widely known to the public, damages were recognized as lost profits as follows:

“The costs incurred by the plaintiffs (costumes, lesson fees, etc.) were paid before the revelation of the relationship for the activities of the group, and it is difficult to immediately view these as damages to the plaintiffs. On the other hand, the plaintiffs argue that these costs became damages because they could no longer expect profits from the group… Considering the plaintiff’s testimony and the overall argument, it can be recognized that the business model of an entertainment production company is to make initial investments, expose idols to the media, increase their popularity, increase sales of tickets and goods, and recover their investments from there. In this case, it can be easily recognized that the dissolution of the group made it difficult to recover future sales.”

ibid.

On the other hand, the management company was judged to be at fault for not providing sufficient guidance and supervision to the idol to comply with the no-dating clause, and this resulted in a fault offset.

“According to the above facts, although it cannot be said that the no-dating clause had become a dead letter, it cannot be recognized that the plaintiffs had provided sufficient guidance and supervision to the members of the group to comply with it, and this constitutes negligence on the part of the plaintiffs in managing and operating the group, and this negligence was a cause of the defendant’s relationship. Considering the plaintiffs’ position as an entertainment production company, which is professionally responsible for guiding and nurturing idol units, and the fact that the defendant was still a young and sensitive girl at the time, it is appropriate to consider the proportion of negligence in the relationship as 40 for the plaintiffs and 60 for the defendant.”

ibid.

3. There is a causal relationship between the revelation of the relationship and the dissolution of the group

The defendant argued that there was no causal relationship between the damages caused by the dissolution of the group and the revelation of the relationship, as the group could have been kept alive even if the relationship had been revealed. However, the court made the following ruling and did not accept this argument:

“Given that the group is a female idol group, it can be recognized that it was necessary to impose a no-dating clause on the members to ensure that they do not date and to gain support from male fans and to sell more tickets and goods. Therefore, as the plaintiffs argue, it can be recognized that the revelation of an idol’s relationship causes a significant deterioration in the social image of the idol and the entertainment production company, and the need to avoid this is quite high. In this case, since the photos had already been leaked to some fans, it is appropriate to recognize that there was a high probability that the relationship would become widely known to the public if the photos were further leaked, and this would have a negative impact on the group and other idol units, and ultimately on the plaintiffs’ social image. Therefore, it can be recognized that there was a certain rationality in the plaintiffs’ decision to dissolve the group early, and there is a causal relationship between the revelation of the relationship and the dissolution of the group.”

ibid.

What we can learn from Case ①

• When entering into a contract with an idol, it is crucial to provide opportunities, such as a joint reading session, to ensure that the idol fully understands the no-dating clause.
• Not only at the contract signing stage, but it is also important to continuously provide guidance and supervision regarding the no-dating rule.

Case Study 2: An Idol Who Violated the Love Ban Was Not Held Liable for Damages

Next, we will discuss a case where a female idol (23) who belonged to an idol group unilaterally abandoned her subsequent performance duties, such as unauthorized absence from live performances and not responding to any contact, triggered by her relationship with a male fan.

The entertainment production company sought damages based on breach of contract or tort.

Case Overview

In April 2012, the defendant, who was 19 years and 9 months old at the time, entered into an exclusive management contract (the contract in question) with the plaintiff company, which included a clause that the plaintiff company could immediately claim damages against the defendant if the defendant had a sexual relationship with a fan and the plaintiff suffered damages as a result.

However, the defendant later started dating a male fan around December 2013, had a sexual relationship, and on July 11, 2014, she told the plaintiff company by email, “I don’t want to bother my parents at this age with unstable income, I want to get a proper job and stabilize,” and “I will quit within this year.”

In response, the plaintiff company replied, “We will arrange for you to graduate around May next year.”

However, the defendant did not appear in the live performance on the 20th of the same month, and on the 26th, she sent a certified mail stating, “As I told you by email on July 11, 2014, I will terminate my business consignment with your company as of July 11, 2014.”

In response, the plaintiff company explained to the audience at the live performance held by the group in question on August 17 that the defendant had withdrawn from the group, that the defendant had been dating a fan, and that this was a serious breach of contract and the reason for the defendant’s withdrawal from the group.

The plaintiff then sued the defendant for damages totaling approximately 8.8 million yen, including the labor and expenses required for the above response and lost profits.

In this case, there were many points of contention, such as the legal nature of the contract in question and the timing of the effect of termination, but it is noteworthy that the court indicated the validity of the love ban clause.

Therefore, in the following, we will focus on the validity of the love ban clause and discuss the court’s judgment.

The Love Ban Clause is Valid, but the Cases Where Damages Can Be Claimed Are Limited

Regarding the validity of the love ban clause, the court indicated as follows:

Indeed, it can be said that the image of a person called a talent directly leads to the value of the person (as a talent). Especially in the case of talents called idols, there is a strong tendency for fans to demand integrity from the idol, and it is well known that fans who do not want the idol to have a sexual relationship with the opposite sex may leave if it is revealed that the idol has had a sexual relationship. Therefore, it is natural for those who manage idols to want to avoid a sexual relationship with the opposite sex or the revelation of such a fact in order to maintain their value. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to understand that there is a certain rationality in setting a provision in a management contract, etc., that restricts having a sexual relationship with the opposite sex, from the standpoint of the management side.
However, feelings towards others are one of the essences of being human, and love is one of the important ones. Therefore, dating the opposite sex as a concrete manifestation of such feelings, and even having a sexual relationship with the opposite sex, can be said to be the very right of self-determination that is important for living one’s own life more richly. The freedom not to be prevented from dating (including having a sexual relationship) with the opposite sex based on mutual agreement is understood to be part of the freedom to pursue happiness. Therefore, at least, to prohibit this with the sanction of damages, even considering the special personalityistics of the profession of an idol, feels somewhat excessive, and it can be said that the entertainment production company’s claim for damages against the affiliated idol on the grounds that the idol had a sexual relationship with the opposite sex significantly restricts the above freedom. Also, whether or not one has had a sexual relationship is usually a private secret that one does not want others to know. Therefore, the plaintiff can claim damages against the defendant Y1 on the grounds that the defendant Y1 had a sexual relationship, only when it is interpreted as limited to cases where it is recognized that the defendant Y1 had malicious intent against the plaintiff, such as deliberately making it public with the intention of causing damage to the plaintiff.

Tokyo District Court, January 18, 2016 (Heisei 28) Judgment

In short, the court indicated that there is a certain rationality in the management company setting a love ban clause for its affiliated idols, and it is valid.

However, since dating the opposite sex is based on the constitutional right to pursue happiness, it was ruled that damages can be recognized only in limited cases, such as when the idol in question intentionally made it public with the purpose of causing damage to the management company.

In this case, the above “purpose of causing damage to the management company by the idol in question” was not recognized, so in conclusion, damages based on the violation of the love ban clause were not recognized.

What We Can Learn from Case Study 2

• The establishment of a love ban clause itself is valid
• However, claims for damages based on the violation of the love ban clause are recognized only in limited cases, such as when the idol in question intentionally made it public with the purpose of causing damage to the management company

Conclusion: Consult a Lawyer if You’re Struggling with Measures Against Violations of Idol’s Love Ban Clause

The two cases introduced in this article are both from lower courts, and it is not guaranteed that the same judgments will be maintained in higher courts in the future.

Initially, the validity of the love ban clause and whether a claim for damages due to a violation of the love ban clause can be recognized should be judged by comparing and weighing various factors. It seems too rigid to limit it to cases such as “only when the idol intentionally publicizes it with the purpose of causing damage to the management company”.

Furthermore, this issue, in the sense of restricting the private lives of affiliated talents, is not only limited to the relationship between the management company and the affiliated idols, but can also arise in the relationship between the YouTuber agency and YouTubers, and between the VTuber business owner and voice actors.

As stated above, the love ban clause can lead to various problems and includes legally difficult issues. If you are in trouble, please consult a lawyer with a track record in this field.

Introduction to Our Firm’s Measures

Monolith Law Office is a legal office with high expertise in both IT, particularly the Internet, and law. In recent years, we have been handling many advisory cases for YouTubers and VTubers, who are becoming popular online. The need for legal checks in channel management and contract-related matters is increasing. At our firm, lawyers with specialized skills are in charge of these measures. Please refer to the article below for more details.

Areas of practice at Monolith Law Office: YouTuber & VTuber Legal Affairs