Love Is Blind Star Sues Netflix Over “Inhumane” Conditions and Cast Misclassification

Okay, but like, here’s the tea you didn’t know you needed: Stephen Richardson from Love Is Blind season seven is suing Netflix, claiming the show’s working conditions were “inhumane.” Public records reviewed by Entertainment Weekly confirm Richardson filed a lawsuit naming Netflix, production partners Kinetic Content and Delirium TV. The electrician, who briefly got engaged to Monica Davis on stage but did not end up saying yes in the finale, argues that contestants were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees. He wants the court to recognize a broader class action that could include contestants from seasons six through nine.

Richardson claims that the producers maintained near total control over contestants’ time, schedule, and even basic needs like eating, sleeping, and communication with the outside world during filming. The filing alleges that cast members had their IDs, wallets, phones, and credit cards taken away, effectively leaving them unable to leave hotel quarters or the set. When food and drinks were provided, Richardson asserts that the choices were limited to alcohol, soft drinks, energy drinks, and mixers, which he says were used to keep cast members in a heightened state of intoxication. The aim, per the lawsuit, was to influence conversations and decisions for the show’s entertainment value, a tactic Richardson describes as a calculated move by the production teams to control behavior.

The suit doesn’t just stop at a personal grievance; it reads as a potential class action, seeking lost wages and unspecified punitive damages for Richardson and others who participated in seasons six through nine. He’s also seeking coverage of legal fees and other damages the court might deem appropriate. E! News notes Netflix, Kinetic Content, and Delirium TV did not immediately respond to requests for comment when contacted by the publication. Meanwhile, season nine of Love Is Blind is scheduled to premiere on Netflix in Colorado on October 1, adding another layer of tension to the timing of this claim.

The broader context here matters because Love Is Blind has become a cultural touchstone for reality dating formats, with millions watching and a development model that blends high production value with unscripted intimacy. The idea that contestants could be treated as independent contractors rather than employees has echoes of ongoing labor debates in the entertainment industry, where workers in reality TV often find themselves in legally gray zones. Richardson’s filing raises questions about how reality show participants are compensated, supervised, and restricted during production, and whether those constraints cross into the territory of coercion or manipulation aimed at boosting viewership and, ultimately, profits.

As fans parse this development, it’s worth noting the public’s long-running fascination with the show’s format. The fourth wall between reality and game show has always been a delicate balance, and the alleged tactics described by Richardson — including controlling access to personal items and limiting outside communication — will likely fuel discussions about the ethics of reality television production. This case could test how much latitude networks and production houses have when orchestrating environments designed to maximize drama while allegedly skirting labor standards. The question now is whether Richardson’s claims hold water under legal scrutiny and if other contestants will join in, potentially reshaping how reality TV is produced and staffed in the streaming era.

Beyond the legal implications, this timing intersects with a fresh season drop. As Love Is Blind returns with season nine in October, viewers will naturally wonder whether inside the villa dynamics played out in the same way or if the new production cycle has already shifted policies in response to this lawsuit. The revelation has the potential to color audiences’ perception of the show, even as the new episodes roll out, inviting fans to watch with a more critical eye toward behind-the-scenes decisions that shape what appears on screen.

For now, the courtroom will tell the next chapter of this story. Will Richardson’s case set a precedent for how reality show contestants are categorized and treated, or will Netflix and its production partners push back with a robust defense? The answer could redefine the contract landscape for reality TV stars in a landscape that already prizes spectacle as much as consent and fair labor practices. As the legal process unfolds, one thing remains certain: fans should brace for more headlines as this drama moves from the hotel set to the courtroom.

Anyway, that is the deal. The next updates could come fast, and the implications could be loud enough to echo through future reality TV seasons.