How Cancel Culture is Shaping Entertainment Contracts
Talia Cherry | May 7, 2026
In the age of culture throughout the world, often stemming from social media, the relationship between entertainers and studios has drastically changed. Just this year, pop sensation Zara Larsson lost a three million dollar brand deal due to a joke made about abortion on TikTok (Simpson, 2026). Although Larsson did not back down, this scenario highlights an increasing trend in entertainment law, which is weaponizing moral clauses.
Moral clauses used to be seen as a boilerplate piece of legal contracts, and have recently transformed into a tool for brands or studios to distance themselves when a celebrity is cancelled or at risk of becoming cancelled (Gardner, 2021). Social media often compounds public backlash and negative reputational effects than it has for celebrities before the rise of social media (Fang, 2024). These clauses are being input into contracts more than ever before, which may create conflicts surrounding fairness, freedom of speech and due process.
History of Moral Clauses
Moral clauses date back to the 1920s after scandal arose from popular silent film actor Roscoe Arbuckle faced allegations of rape, although never convicted. After this incident, many clauses focus on ending contracts due to criminal convictions. Today, moral clauses in contracts are written with sweeping terms that also include ridicule, public disrepute, or scandal, among other general terms. This shift is driven by the rise of social media. People can share and disseminate disapproval quickly across a vast group of people, meaning that it is disadvantageous to wait for a court ruling to break a contract with a fallen celebrity (Fang, 2024).
Issue with Subjectivity
The most relevant issues surrounding these clauses is that they are typically very subjective. If a contract with a celebrity can be terminated if they do something that in the company or organization’s view reputationally harms them, then does that leave open a one-sided opportunity for the company to get out of a contract whenever it is convenient or beneficial to them? Could any public statement, interaction, like, comment or repost be twisted to be harmful to the reputation, if it only requires it to be subjectively harmful? These moral clauses, in the age of social media, may mean that an entertainer ‘violated’ their contract, not for a crime or hate speech, but for publicly expressing a political opinion or for an off-color joke. The vague language often included in these clauses allows organizations to terminate contracts not on clear standards or violations, but on subjective assessments of risk (Is a Morality Clause Moral?, 2023) . Companies may wait to see how outraged the public is before deciding to end their relationship with an entertainer, meaning that severing ties is less about morality versus profitability (Setty, 2026). This begs the question: is it really moral to potentially take away the livelihood of someone based on how long the public dwells on it?
Kennedy Center Incident
There is also legal vulnerability for entertainers who have moral clauses in their contracts because they may wish to terminate their contract because fulfilling it or being associated with a certain organization may cause reputational harm on their end. Take for example, how artists cancelled performances at the Kennedy Center following the decision to rename it after President Trump (Noor Nanji, 2026). These performers wish to invoke the moral clauses in their contracts in order to end their contracts. However, an artist cancelling over political disagreements is likely seen as a breach of contact; most moral clauses focus on the behavior of the artist, not the company (Exhibit Ex. D to Freeny Declaration, 2026) . This demonstrates that these contracts are typically uneven in who they protect: brands and organizations can pull out of contracts much more easily due to reputational impact, but performers do not have the same luxury.
Conclusion
It is undisputed that moral clauses serve a legitimate purpose. Every brand is entitled to protect and shape their images that they have strategically invested into and built. The company deserves methods for ending a contract if the spokesperson is a violent criminal. Yet, the line between immorality and political disagreement has been blurred, increasingly so due to social media. Clauses often are in favor of the company over the entertainer. Contracts need to be specific, not allowing for automatic termination for political speech because of a viral mob and the rise of cancel culture.
References
Exhibit Ex. D to Freeny Declaration – #13, Att. #11 in BEATTY v. TRUMP (D.D.C., 1:25-cv-04480) – CourtListener.com. (2026). CourtListener. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72069932/13/11/beatty-v-trump/#pdf
Fang, C. (2024, May 31). Book Publishing in the Era of Social Media Cancel Culture. Comm/Ent. https://uclawsfcomment.org/online-content/book-publishing-cancel-culture
Gardner, E. (2021, April 2). Breaking Down the Legal Dos and Don’ts of Hollywood’s "Cancel. The Hollywood Reporter. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/breaking-down-the-legal-dos-and-donts-of-hollywoods-cancel-culture-4158225/
Is A Morality Clause Moral? (2023, May 4). Morrisdewett.com. https://morrisdewett.com/is-a-morality-clause-moral/
Noor Nanji. (2026, January 4). Wicked composer latest to cancel Kennedy Center gig after Trump name change. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y2r0yvj25o
Setty, P. (2026, March 11). Priya Setty – Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law. Harvard.edu. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jsel/author/rsettyjd26-law-harvard-edu/
Simpson, K. (2026, April 3). Zara Larsson Claims She Lost $3 Million Brand Deal Over Abortion Joke. Fort Worth Star-Telegram. https://www.star-telegram.com/entertainment/us-weekly/article315292759.html
