What duty of care do reality TV producers owe their contestants?
As ITV’s Big Brother prepares for its live final on Thursday, 5 November 2026, the latest series has been overshadowed by controversy surrounding the treatment and welfare of contestants. We examine the legal responsibilities of broadcasters and production companies to protect those taking part in reality television programmes.
The controversy surrounding Omar El Mayer and Rhianna Collins
At the centre of the controversy are contestants Omar El Mayer and Rhianna Collins, who developed a romantic relationship during their time in the house.
An episode broadcast on 19 October 2026 showed a series of heated exchanges between the pair, during which Mr El Mayer was seen challenging Ms Collins’ feelings and telling her not to cry or look away from him. The exchanges prompted widespread criticism, with viewers expressing concerns that his behaviour displayed characteristics of coercive control and emotional abuse.
The episode generated over 13,000 complaints to Ofcom, with further complaints arising from subsequent broadcasts. Some viewers called for Mr El Mayer to be removed from the programme and questioned whether producers had done enough to protect Ms Collins.
On 20 October, domestic abuse charity Women’s Aid intervened, expressing concern about the behaviour being shown and the potential consequences of presenting such interactions as entertainment.
Veronica Oakeshott, Head of External Affairs at Women’s Aid, warned that abusive relationships can begin with signs of coercive and controlling behaviour before escalating. She confirmed that the charity had been contacted by numerous concerned viewers and warned that the programme risked minimising survivors’ experiences and presenting abuse as entertainment.
Women’s Aid also called on ITV and other television companies to engage with domestic abuse specialists to improve their understanding of abusive behaviour and how best to protect participants.
Following the criticism, Mr El Mayer was called to the Diary Room, where Big Brother raised concerns that he appeared to be dismissing other housemates’ feelings and warned that his language and behaviour could cause offence. Mr El Mayer denied dismissing Ms Collins’ feelings and maintained that he had sought to support her.
ITV has defended its safeguarding arrangements, explaining that housemates receive respect and inclusion training before entering the house, are monitored around the clock and have access to a dedicated welfare team before, during and after filming.
Since leaving the programme, Ms Collins has publicly reflected on her relationship with Mr El Mayer, suggesting that watching back certain exchanges has changed her perspective on his behaviour towards her.
The controversy raises wider questions about the responsibilities of broadcasters and production companies to recognise potentially harmful behaviour, intervene where necessary and protect the welfare of participants.
In particular, it raises the question of whether having safeguarding procedures in place is sufficient, or whether the real test is how effectively those procedures are applied when concerns arise during filming.
Duty of care and safeguarding responsibilities in practice
Broadcasters and production companies owe reality television participants a duty of care to take reasonable steps in all the circumstances to avoid exposing them to foreseeable physical, psychological or reputational harm arising from their involvement. In practice, this duty begins before filming and continues after broadcast. It involves screening participants at the casting stage, recognising warning signs, assessing risks, introducing appropriate safeguards and providing medical and psychological support throughout. Protective measures may also include removing participants from filming.
The production environment is an important part of this assessment. Reality television programmes often give production companies extensive control over contestants’ daily lives while isolating them from family and friends. These conditions can increase vulnerability to harm, making it essential to consider how the environment creates or amplifies risks.
Consent to take part in a high-stress or distressing programme does not remove the duty of care owed by broadcasters or production companies, even where the format involves conflict or relationships between contestants. Individuals who actively seek to participate may not fully understand the pressures they will face during and after filming. Production companies must therefore continue to address foreseeable risks and support participants throughout the process.
Ofcom complaints and regulatory powers
Alongside these duties, broadcasters are subject to regulatory oversight by Ofcom, which regulates broadcasting, internet, telecommunications and postal services in the UK. Its broadcasting remit includes handling complaints, investigations and sanctions concerning television, radio and on-demand services.
Any person or body may complain if they consider that a broadcaster has failed to comply with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code. The Code is designed to protect audiences from harmful and offensive material, ensure accuracy, protect programme participants from unfair or unjust treatment and prevent unwanted infringements of privacy.
Where Ofcom considers that a broadcaster has seriously, deliberately, recklessly or repeatedly breached its Broadcasting Code, it may impose a sanction. Sanctions include directions not to repeat the offending material or to broadcast a correction or statement of Ofcom’s findings. In the most serious cases, Ofcom may impose financial penalties or shorten, suspend or revoke the broadcaster’s licence.
Where does responsibility lie between broadcasters, production companies and contestants?
The controversy surrounding Big Brother highlights the distinction between the conduct of individual contestants and the responsibilities of those producing and broadcasting the programme.
Broadcasters remain accountable for compliance with the Broadcasting Code, which requires due care over participants’ welfare, even where an independent production company makes the programme. Production companies are responsible for putting appropriate safeguards into practice through casting, risk assessment, monitoring, timely intervention and aftercare. Individual contestants remain responsible for their own conduct and subject to applicable criminal and civil law, and participation does not excuse unlawful behaviour.
Ultimately, the issue is not simply whether behaviour shown on screen was inappropriate, but whether those responsible for the programme recognised the risks, responded appropriately and took reasonable steps to protect the welfare of the people involved.
As reality television continues to rely on emotionally charged interactions to attract audiences, the distinction between entertainment and participant welfare remains an important area of legal and regulatory scrutiny.
How Taylor Hampton can help
Our team at Taylor Hampton has extensive experience with sensitive civil complaints, including in group litigation, on behalf of individuals who have suffered significant distress as a result of systemic failures by corporate organisations and their staff. We have worked alongside other claimant lawyers to obtain excellent results for our clients while pushing forward important developments in the law of privacy.
We are currently investigating a number of claims on behalf of individuals who have suffered harm during their participation on reality television programmes, including Married At First Sight UK. Individuals who have been affected, or who wish to discuss their experiences confidentially, can contact Taylor Hampton Solicitors regarding any questions or concerns they may have.
If you would like to get in touch to seek confidential advice, please send an email to enquiries@taylorhampton.co.uk and we will arrange to give you a call. You can also read more about our media law services.
Disclaimer: This article provides general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Civil procedure rules and case law can change. Always seek professional legal advice tailored to your specific situation before acting.