Fact check: How have modeling agencies changed their recruitment and protection policies since the Jeffrey Epstein allegations?

1. Summary of the results

The analyses reveal limited concrete evidence of specific policy changes within modeling agencies following the Jeffrey Epstein allegations. While the question seeks information about industry-wide reforms, the sources primarily document the ongoing problems rather than solutions.

Key findings include:

• Jean-Luc Brunel's MC2 modeling agency served as a recruitment pipeline for Epstein's exploitation network, with Brunel using his position to recruit young girls who were then sexually exploited ^[1]
• Over 100 models signed a letter demanding Victoria's Secret join the RESPECT program, which would legally bind companies to a code of conduct with zero tolerance for sexual misconduct ^[2]
• Sara Ziff, founder of the Model Alliance, stated that modeling agencies remain largely unregulated, perpetuating systemic sexual assault and trafficking of young women and girls ^[3]
• Jean-Luc Brunel's death in 2022 while awaiting trial effectively ended one avenue for accountability and justice for victims ^{[3] [4]}

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal significant gaps in addressing the original question:

• No specific policy changes are documented - while the sources acknowledge the need for reform, they don't provide concrete examples of agencies that have actually implemented new recruitment or protection measures ^{[1] [3]}
• The industry remains largely unregulated - according to Model Alliance founder Sara Ziff, the fundamental structural problems persist despite the high-profile scandals ^[3]
• Financial interests may resist change - modeling agencies and fashion brands like Victoria's Secret (through parent company L Brands) would face increased costs and liability if they implemented comprehensive protection programs like RESPECT ^[2]
• Powerful industry figures benefit from maintaining the status quo - established agencies and their leadership have financial incentives to resist regulatory oversight that could expose past misconduct or limit their recruitment practices

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit assumption that may not reflect reality:

• The question assumes policy changes have occurred when the evidence suggests modeling agencies have made minimal concrete reforms since the Epstein allegations became public ^[3]
• The framing suggests industry-wide transformation when the sources indicate that systemic problems persist, with agencies remaining largely unregulated despite calls for change from advocacy groups like the Model Alliance ^[3]
• The question may create false confidence in industry reform when victims and advocates continue to highlight ongoing vulnerabilities in the modeling industry's structure and oversight ^{[2] [3]}