Taylor Frankie Paul, Public Backlash, and The Bachelorette: Contract Law in the Age of Social Media

by Kennedy Aikey, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Vol. 94

I. Introduction

On March 19, 2026, ABC pulled its upcoming season of The Bachelorette, a popular dating show, in the wake of a massive cancellation of the show’s star, Taylor Frankie Paul.¹ TMZ leaked a video from 2023 of Paul attacking Dakota Mortensen, the father of one of her children.² Paul’s child was clearly present during this altercation and can be heard crying during the video.³ Disney, the owner of ABC, where The Bachelorette airs, made a statement regarding the video:

In light of the newly released video that has just surfaced today, we have made the decision to not move forward with the new season of The Bachelorette at this time, and our focus is on supporting the family.⁴

The full season of The Bachelorette had already been filmed and was scheduled for release just a few days after the cancellation, with a premiere on Sunday, March 22, 2026.⁵ This abrupt cancellation of an entire season of The Bachelorette could have potential legal ramifications, including breach of contract claims from both Paul and Disney/ABC.⁶ This Article will examine whether ABC/Disney acted properly by pulling Paul’s season of The Bachelorette or if this was a breach of contract that could commence possible litigation from Paul in the future.

Part II of this Article will provide background information about the cancellation of The Bachelorette and Taylor Frankie Paul’s history of domestic violence, as well as discuss morality clauses and their legality. Part III will discuss the likelihood of Paul’s contract with ABC containing a morality clause and how that would have impacted ABC’s decision to pull the show. Finally, Part IV will briefly conclude and highlight the importance of drafting contract provisions carefully to fully protect companies and individuals.

II. Background

A. Taylor Frankie Paul and ABC’s Casting Controversy

Taylor Frankie Paul was unlike any other woman picked to be the bachelorette.⁷ For the first time in 21 seasons, ABC picked a bachelorette with no prior history with The Bachelor franchise.⁸ Typically, bachelors and bachelorettes are chosen from contestants of past seasons; however, that is not the case with Paul.⁹ Paul instead rose to fame through TikTok, and her hit reality show Secret Lives of Mormon Wives, which focused on Paul and other famous TikTok mothers known as “MomTok.”¹⁰ MomTok gained its notoriety in 2020 through TikTok dances, makeup routines, and vlog-style “day in the life” content focused on being a Mormon mother in Utah.¹¹ The mom’s TikTok videos were often in stark contrast with traditional rules placed upon Mormon women, which gained the attention of the internet.¹² In 2022, rumors of a swinging scandal within the MomTok group pushed Paul into the spotlight as a video of her admitting to “soft-swinging” with other members of MomTok’s husbands went viral.¹³ Scandals like this are what led to the reality show Secret Lives of Mormon Wives, which follows the lives and drama of MomTok.¹⁴

Paul is known as the controversial leader of MomTok, and her rocky history and criminal record were no secret to ABC when she was cast as the bachelorette, as season one of Secret Lives of Mormon Wives opens with Paul being arrested for child abuse and domestic violence based on the same 2023 incident that caused the cancellation of The Bachelorette.¹⁵ Paul ended up pleading guilty to aggravated assault from the 2023 incident.¹⁶ ABC marketed Paul as an unconventional and messy bachelorette who would break the mold of all previous bachelorettes.¹⁷ The recently leaked video from TMZ is not the only new development, as a more recent incident was also reported of Paul engaging in domestic violence, once again involving Dakota Mortensen, in February of 2026.¹⁸ Police confirmed that there is an open investigation in Draper, Utah, regarding the most recent allegations of domestic abuse between Paul and Mortensen.¹⁹

Although Disney and ABC were aware of Paul’s problematic past, the release of the video painted a fuller picture as to what happened in 2023 and how Paul’s young daughter was involved.²⁰ Even though the 2023 incident had been at the center of Paul’s rise to fame during the first season of Secret Lives of Mormon Wives, the true extent of what happened that night was not made clear until the video was released.²¹ Once the video was published, executives at Disney and ABC, like Debra O’Connell, the chair of Disney Entertainment Television, Craig Erwich, the TV president, and Rob Mills, the executive for unscripted programming, knew they could not move forward with Paul’s season of The Bachelorette.²² Not airing the season may be a breach of ABC’s contract with Paul; however, the presence of a morality clause might have enabled the executives to quickly cut ties without legal ramifications.²³

B. The History and Evolution of Morality Clauses

Morality clauses are contractual provisions that grant one party the right to terminate an agreement or take punitive action against another party if the other party engages in reprehensible conduct that adversely affects their public image and the contracting company’s image.²⁴ Morality clauses have a long history, with the earliest dating back to the 1920s.²⁵ In 1921, while at the height of his career, a silent film comedian, Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle, faced charges of rape and manslaughter.²⁶ Although the star was later acquitted of both counts, his reputation and public image were tarnished.²⁷ Paramount pulled his newest release, Crazy to Marry, due to the public backlash.²⁸ After this incident, Universal Film Company announced that talent would be subject to morality clauses moving forward.²⁹

Morality clauses are used not only in the entertainment and film industries but also in the sports industry.³⁰ One of the first sports morality clauses was placed upon Babe Ruth, who not only had a reputation of being one of the best baseball players but also a reputation of being a “glutton, womanizer, spendthrift, heavy drinker, and smoker” off the field.³¹ In 1922, the New York Yankees introduced a morality clause into Ruth’s contract, which required him to abstain from alcohol and be in bed by 1:00 am during baseball season.³² This clause allowed the Yankees to take legal action against Ruth if he violated the proscribed conduct.³³

Morality clauses came back to the forefront of the entertainment industry in the 1940s and 1950s, during McCarthyism.³⁴ Hollywood Studios sought to invoke its morality clause in the contracts of “The Hollywood Ten,” a group of producers, screenwriters, and directors who had publicly criticized the work of the House Un-American Activities Committee during its investigation into Communist influence in Hollywood.³⁵ The studio cited the political leanings of the Hollywood Ten and the controversy they caused as breaches of their morality provisions and terminated their employment.³⁶

In the modern era of reality stars and social media influencers turned celebrities, morality clauses are still extremely common.³⁷ The Directors Guild of America (“DGA”) and the Writers Guild of America (WGA) have both expressly prohibited the use of morality clauses.³⁸ However, the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (“SAG-AFTRA”) has remained silent on the issue of morality clauses, leaving the door open for studios and networks to include them at their discretion.³⁹

A modern-day morality clause case involved Charlie Sheen, who sued Warner Brothers in 2011 for terminating his contract on the television show Two and a Half Men.⁴⁰ Due to the litigation, the morality clause was made public and specified that only actions constituting a felony would trigger a breach.⁴¹ The case ultimately settled, with Warner Brothers paying Charlie Sheen around $25 million.⁴²

The #MeToo Movement throughout 2017 and 2018 highlighted the potential need for morality clauses in the entertainment industry.⁴³ During this time period, Netflix terminated its relationship with Kevin Spacey after more than three dozen sexual abuse allegations against the actor surfaced.⁴⁴ However, his contract did not contain a morality clause; it provided that he could be terminated only if he became “unavailable” or “incapacitated.”⁴⁵ Netflix was still able to terminate Spacey under its sexual harassment policy; however, if he was subject to a morality clause, the termination could have been much quicker, earlier, and less expensive.⁴⁶ Clear language in a morality clause can prohibit behavior or even allow a company to protect its reputation from talent like Spacey.⁴⁷

C. Types of Morality Clauses and the Rise of Reverse Clauses

There are two types of morality clause provisions: bad behavior clauses and reputational impact clauses.⁴⁸ These two provisions are not mutually exclusive, as many morality clauses contain both provisions.⁴⁹ Bad behavior clauses prohibit certain behavior.⁵⁰ A narrow bad behavior clause will define specific unwanted behavior, for example, failing a drug test, an arrest, or a criminal conviction.⁵¹ However, a broad bad behavior clause may prohibit any conduct that falls outside public morals or acceptable social norms without specifying prohibited actions.⁵² Reputational impact clauses do not focus on the individual wrongdoing but rather on its effect on the community.⁵³ These types of clauses prohibit acts that would offend the community or reflect badly on the contracting party.⁵⁴ A public outcry, or adverse reaction, is evidence that the act has negatively impacted the reputation of one or both parties and, therefore, the clause is triggered.⁵⁵

In recent years, “reverse” morality clauses have also gained popularity.⁵⁶ These clauses would allow the talent or the individual to terminate their contractual relationship with a company that has gained a negative reputation.⁵⁷ The need for a “reverse” morality clause was famously illustrated in the 2002 relationship between the Houston Astros and Enron Corporation.⁵⁸ The two parties had entered into a contract in which Enron agreed to pay $100 million over 30 years for naming rights of the Houston Astros baseball field.⁵⁹ However, after a massive scandal involving Enron, the Astros were forced to pay Enron’s creditors $2.1 million to buy back the naming rights to the field and distance themselves from the negative reputation.⁶⁰

D. Freedom of Contract and the Limits of Morality Clauses

A core principle of contract law is freedom of contract, meaning that a competent person may make their own bargains.⁶¹ The general rule is that a “competent person shall have the utmost liberty of contracting and that their agreements voluntarily and fairly made shall be held valid and enforced in the courts.”⁶² Although people have the freedom of contract, there are certain limitations.⁶³ Contracts are often unenforceable when either party lacks capacity, the contract is unconscionable, or the contract is against public policy.⁶⁴

Non-competes are a type of contract deemed against public policy, as they typically require the weaker party to refrain from competing in a related business after the relationship ends.⁶⁵ Typically, non-compete agreements are enforceable only if the restrictions are reasonably necessary to protect the employer.⁶⁶ Non-competes must (1) provide a reasonable time limit; (2) provide a reasonable territorial limit; (3) not be too harsh or oppressive on the employee; and (4) not be contrary to public policy.⁶⁷ Although non-compete clauses have been heavily scrutinized by courts, morality clauses have not received the same level of judicial scrutiny.⁶⁸ Morality clauses have a lot in common with non-compete clauses, despite not receiving judicial scrutiny.⁶⁹ Just like non-compete clauses, morality clauses often protect the stronger party’s business interest, restrain individual rights, and can often be extremely broad.⁷⁰

III. Discussion

The contract terms between Taylor Frankie Paul and ABC/Disney are not publicly available at the time of this article. This discussion will focus on the possibility that Paul’s contract contained a morality clause and discuss how different kinds of morality clauses would impact the contractual relationship between Paul and ABC. Although the contract terms are unknown because no suit for breach of contract has been filed, this Article will explain how a morality clause could be the key contract provision barring any legal action regarding the cancellation of The Bachelorette.

The central issue in determining whether ABC and Disney acted within their contractual rights is whether Taylor Frankie Paul’s agreement contained a morality clause and, if so, whether her conduct fell within its scope. Although the precise terms of Paul’s contract are not publicly available, industry custom suggests that such a provision was included. Morality clauses are standard in entertainment contracts, particularly in reality television, where a show’s success is closely tied to the public perception of its cast.⁷¹ Given Paul’s status as both a social media influencer and a controversial public figure, it is highly likely that ABC sought to protect itself from reputational harm through a broadly drafted morality provision.

Assuming the presence of a morality clause, the next question is whether Paul’s conduct triggered its protections. If the clause were structured as a bad behavior provision, Paul’s prior guilty plea to aggravated assault would likely fall squarely within its scope. Many morality clauses explicitly reference criminal conduct, arrests, or behavior involving violence as grounds for termination. Under such a clause, ABC could argue that Paul’s conduct constituted a clear breach, justifying its decision to cancel the season. However, the analysis becomes more complex when considering the timing of ABC’s decision. ABC was aware of the 2023 incident prior to casting Paul as the bachelorette, and it even appeared to incorporate her controversial past into the show’s marketing strategy.⁷² This raises the question of whether ABC effectively waived its ability to rely on that conduct as a basis for termination. If the network knowingly entered into the contract despite Paul’s criminal history, it may be argued that the underlying conduct alone cannot justify cancellation.

ABC’s strongest argument instead lies in a reputational impact clause. Unlike bad behavior provisions, reputational clauses focus not on the conduct itself, but on its effect on public perception. The release of the video in 2026 materially altered the public’s understanding of the 2023 incident, revealing previously unknown details and sparking renewed backlash. The presence of a child during the altercation, as well as the emotional nature of the video, likely intensified public condemnation and created a substantially greater risk of reputational harm to ABC and Disney. Under a broadly drafted reputational clause, this shift in public sentiment could be sufficient to trigger the provision, even if the underlying conduct was not new.

Despite this, reliance on a morality clause in these circumstances raises broader concerns regarding enforceability and fairness. Morality clauses are often drafted in vague and expansive terms, allowing companies significant discretion in determining what constitutes unacceptable conduct. This creates the potential for opportunistic behavior, where a company invokes a morality clause not solely to protect its reputation but to avoid financial or strategic disadvantages. In Paul’s case, ABC’s decision to proceed with filming despite knowledge of her past, only to cancel the season following public backlash, suggests a reactive rather than principled application of the clause.

This dynamic mirrors concerns surrounding non-compete agreements, which are frequently scrutinized for imposing undue restrictions on individuals while disproportionately benefiting the stronger contracting party. Like non-competes, morality clauses may function to limit an individual’s professional opportunities based on broadly defined and potentially subjective standards of conduct. Although courts have traditionally upheld morality clauses under the principle of freedom of contract, the increasing reach of such clauses in the modern entertainment industry raises questions about whether greater judicial scrutiny is warranted.

Ultimately, ABC’s decision to cancel the season likely falls within the bounds of a broadly drafted morality clause, particularly if the clause included reputational harm language. However, the circumstances surrounding the cancellation, specifically, ABC’s prior knowledge of Paul’s conduct and its decision to proceed with production, complicate this conclusion. These facts suggest that while ABC may have acted within its contractual rights, its reliance on the morality clause highlights the need for clearer limitations on such provisions to prevent inconsistent and potentially inequitable enforcement.

IV. Conclusion

The cancellation of Taylor Frankie Paul’s season of The Bachelorette highlights the complex intersection of contractual rights, public perception, and moral conduct in the entertainment industry. While Paul’s actions are undeniably troubling, the legal question centers on whether ABC and Disney acted within the scope of the contract. Given the prevalence of morality clauses in reality television and the likely inclusion of provisions addressing reputational harm, ABC’s decision to cancel the season appears defensible under contract law.

At the same time, the circumstances, particularly ABC’s prior knowledge of Paul’s past conduct, illustrate the delicate balance between enforcing contractual provisions and ensuring equitable treatment. This case underscores that morality clauses, while legally enforceable, grant networks broad discretion that can raise fairness concerns. The situation serves as a reminder for both talent and studios to carefully consider how these clauses are drafted and applied in practice.

Cover Photo by Solen Fevissa on Unsplash

Kennedy Aikey

References

1
Julia Jacobs & John Koblin, ‘The Bachelorette’ Season Canceled After Leaked Video of Assault, N.Y. Times (Mar. 19, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/19/arts/television/bachelorette-canceled-taylor-frankie-paul-video.html [https://perma.cc/N4XY-UALS].
2
Id.
3
Julia Jacobs & John Koblin, Her Past Was No Secret. Footage of a Child’s Cry Changed Everything, N.Y. Times (Mar. 28, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/28/arts/television/taylor-frankie-paul-child-endangerment.html [https://perma.cc/E7RH-WTB9].
4
Jacobs & Koblin, supra note 1.
5
Julia Gomez, ‘The Bachelorette’ Canceled After Taylor Frankie Paul Controversy: What We Know, USA Today (Mar. 21, 2026), https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2026/03/21/taylor-frankie-paul-bachelorette-cancelled-abc/89251666007/[https://perma.cc/34GL-75NA].
6
Anthony Robledo, Taylor Frankie Paul’s ‘Bachelorette’ Canceled. Can ABC Get a Refund?, USA Today (Mar. 21, 2026), https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2026/03/21/taylor-frankie-paul-bachelorette-cancelled-abc/89251666007/[https://perma.cc/54VT-JVWK].
7
Julia Jacobs & John Koblin, ‘The Bachelorette’ Took a Risk on Taylor Frankie Paul. It Backfired., N.Y. Times (Mar. 20, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/20/arts/television/bachelorette-taylor-frankie-paul-momtok.html [https://perma.cc/33AU-H5C6].
8
Id.
9
Id.
10
Id.
11
What Is MomTok?, Hulu (June 26, 2025), https://www.hulu.com/guides/what-is-momtok [https://perma.cc/9ZSD-BY2D].
12
Id.
13
Id.
14
Id.
15
Jacobs & Koblin, supra note 7.
16
Madison Malone Kircher, Caught in the Fallout From the ‘Bachelorette’ Scandal, N.Y. Times (Mar. 20, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/20/style/bachelorette-canceled-taylor-frankie-paul-fallout.html [https://perma.cc/J8K8-ARPN].
17
Jacobs & Koblin, supra note 7.
18
Kircher, supra note 16.
19
Id.
20
Jacobs & Koblin, supra note 3.
21
Id.
22
Jacobs & Koblin, supra note 1.
23
Robledo, supra note 6.
24
Patricia Sanchez Abril & Nicholas Greene, Contracting Correctness: A Rubric for Analyzing Morality Clauses, 74 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 3, 9–10 (2017).
25
Annamarie White Carty, Cancelled: Morality Clauses in an Influencer Era, 26 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 565, 568 (2022).
26
Id. at 568–69.
27
Id. at 569.
28
Id.
29
Id.
30
Porcher L. Taylor III, Fernando M. Pinguelo & Timothy D. Cedrone, The Reverse-Morals Clause: The Unique Way to Save Talent’s Reputation and Money in a New Era of Corporate Crimes and Scandals, 28 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 65, 75 (2010).
31
Id.
32
Id.
33
Id. at 76.
34
Carty, supra note 25, at 571.
35
Id.
36
Caroline Epstein, Morals Clauses: Past, Present and Future, 5 N.Y.U. J. Intell. Prop. & Ent. L. 72, 77 (2015).
37
Carty, supra note 25, at 572.
38
Id.
39
Id.
40
Id.
41
Id.
42
Id. at 573.
43
Allyn Davidson, #MoralsToo: The Film Industry Must Implement an International Morals Clause, 26 Sw. J. Int’l L. 376, 378 (2020).
44
Carty, supra note 25, at 573.
45
Id.
46
Id. at 574.
47
Id.
48
Abril & Greene, supra note 24, at 10.
49
Id.
50
Id.
51
Id.
52
Id. at 11.
53
Id.
54
Id.
55
Id.
56
Carty, supra note 25, at 574.
57
Id.
58
Id.
59
Id.
60
Id.
61
Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 1-3 (Am. Law Inst. 1981).
62
Twin City Pipe Line Co. v. Harding Glass Co., 283 U.S. 353, 356 (1931).
63
Abril & Greene, supra note 24, at 32.
64
Id. at 32–33.
65
Id. at 33.
66
Id.
67
Id.
68
Id. at 35.
69
Id.
70
Id.
71
Carty, supra note 25, at 572.
72
Jacobs & Koblin, supra note 7.