Unlicensed talent agencies risk having their contracts declared illegal and unenforceable and losing all their commissions. Recognizing that an emerging recording artist typically cannot secure the services of an agent without a recording agreement in hand, the TAA does permit unlicensed individuals to engage in procuring recording contracts for an artist. In addition, unlicensed persons may negotiate employment contracts for clients so long as they act in conjunction with and at the request of a licensed talent agent.
The TAA also provides that in cases arising under the TAA, the parties shall refer the matters in dispute to the Labor Commissioner, who shall hear and determine the case, subject to an appeal to the superior court. Cases arising under the TAA must be brought within one year.
By containing detailed licensing requirements seeking to weed out individuals of questionable moral character from talent agencies, and severely punishing those who act as talent agents without the required license, California’s Talent Agencies Act aims to protect artists from unethical business people.
TAA（藝人經紀法）規範TAA裡發生的案件，當事人應將糾紛事件提負勞動委員長，其聆聽陳述或閱覽書面後會作出決定，如有不服則向法院提起救濟。TAA的案件須在1年內提交勞動委員長。藉由細部執照要件以汰除因倫理因素而無法擔任藝人經紀人者，對未領有執照而擔任經紀人者施以處罰；加州藝人經紀法具焦保護藝人遠離沒品的生意人。
Blanks v. Seyfarth Shaw
Billy Blanks v. Seyfarth Shaw is the real-life 2009 case on which our hypothetical in the Introduction is based. In this case, Greenfield, a certified public accountant, was hired by Blanks, celebrity karate champion, as Blanks’ accountant. Some years later, Greenfield became Blanks’ business manager and began negotiating business deals and media appearances for Blanks in return for 10 percent of Blank’s revenues. Greenfield was not licensed under the Talent Agencies Act. Blanks learned that Greenfield was required to be licensed under the TAA and hired the law firm of Seyfarth Shaw (“Seyfarth”) to sue Greenfield for over $10.5 million in fees paid by Blanks to Greenfield. Seyfarth filed a lawsuit in November 1999. On December 29, 1999 the TAA one-year statute of limitations lapsed on the first check Blanks had paid to Greenfield, and it lapsed on the last of sixteen checks paid by Blanks to Greenfield on August 2, 2000. Seyfarth, apparently discovering its error, filed a petition with the Labor Commissioner on August 28, 2000. The Labor Commissioner found that Greenfield had indeed been in violation of the TAA, but because the TAA mandates that the Labor Commissioner has exclusive original jurisdiction over all TAA claims, and the petition with the Labor Commissioner was not filed within one year of the date the last check was paid, Blanks could not recover.
Billy Blanks v. Seyfarth Shaw是2009年真實案例；同時是前述簡介之立論基礎。該案Greenfield；是受雇於Blanks之註冊執業會計師；Blank是空手道冠軍；名人。若干年後，Greenfield成為Blanks業務經理，為Blanks打理生意、交易談判，居中牽線讓Blanks頻上鏡頭露臉，並以Blanks收入百分之10作為Greenfield的報酬。Greenfield依據加州藝人經紀法未持有經紀人執照；Blanks得知後便委任Seyfarth Shaw律師事務所（下稱Seyfarth）對Greenfield提告，請求返還昔日給付逾1千零5拾萬美元之報酬。