Despite its humor, the new season of the popular, unconventional reality show “Jury Duty” is bringing up tough ethical questions for its fans.

The first season of “Jury Duty” followed Ronald Gladden, the protagonist or ‘hero,’ — and the only non-actor — in a series of scripted events following a trial. Season two revolved around a fictional hot sauce company named ‘Rockin’ Grandma’s’ that Anthony Norman, the hero, believed he was doing temp work for. Both seasons culminate in a dramatic reveal in which the hero is told the premise and rewarded for their actions during the show.

“Jury Duty” was created by “The Office” writers Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky. The first season, “Jury Duty” was released on Prime Video on April 7, 2023, and the second season, “Jury Duty: Company Retreat” was released March 20, 2026. Fans of “Jury Duty” describe it as entertaining, interesting, and heartwarming.

The star of season one, Ronald Gladden, has since partnered with large brands like Elf Cosmetics, Mint Mobile, Swash Detergent, and foster care non-profit One Simple Wish. Gladden and Norman have spoken about the inclusive, family-like environment on the show.

The premise of the show has brought up concerns about its arguably opaque ethics.

The Willistonian reached out to several writers on the show, Jake Syzamanski, Lee Eisenberg, and Gene Stupnitsky, but received no reply. However, Szymanski spoke in a CBC interview about the writers’ discussion of ethical standards throughout the show.

“How can we day-to-day, moment-to-moment be acting in the most morally right way in this circumstance?” he recounted, before saying there can be “things that [are] funny on paper and [make] sense for the character arcs of a show. But when you’re dealing with a real human person with real emotions and real connections to those people, that’s where it gets tricky.”

Jorge Rodriguez, Williston’s Theater Director, says the heroes’ contracts, like other reality tv shows, likely covered the prank without explicitly informing them.

“I would imagine that the producers said something to the ‘heroes’ like ‘we are making a documentary about a jury or company retreat and we’d like you to be a part of it.’ Then they signed a contract that listed the terms for that, and the fact that it turns out to be long prank is covered by those terms, even if not explicitly.”

A spokesperson for the actors’ union, SAG AFTRA, commented that, while SAG AFTRA contracts don’t typically apply to reality TV, the union would be concerned about a lack of transparency.

“SAG-AFTRA Agreements often do not cover amateur participants in reality-type shows. That said, the union believes transparency in employment is critical and would have concerns about any individual not being fully informed about the work they are being asked to do.”

As a fan of the show, Rodriguez says that the preparation and commitment of actors, as well as the morality of the hero, makes it interesting.

“I love this show because it requires so much coordination, such committed performances, and such luck in finding a fitting ‘hero’,” he said. “It never feels like the joke is on the ‘hero’ — I’m never laughing at him, but rather at the situation the producers have created around him.”

Tom Johnson, the History and Global Studies department head, says that the premise itself is ethically cloudy.

“Fundamentally, it is deceptive and the person involved who isn’t in the know is used without giving consent, or being informed enough to give proper consent,” he said.

Ronald Gladden in an interview with NBC said he felt conflicted during the show.

“I would almost start to question my own sanity,” he described. “Like, am I actually going crazy? … Or does it just make more sense that I’m just surrounded by some weird people doing some weird stuff?”

Johnson says this paranoia could be a reason why the premise of the show appears somewhat problematic.

“I am not sure the show would succeed without some panic paranoia for the protagonists,” said Johnson. “That’s why it definitely feels exploitative in some manner, since they have not engaged in the activity with all the information. “

Sophia Kelter, avid fan of “Jury Duty” and senior at Westfield Technical School, says her favorite part of the show is the end of season two, when Anthony Norman assists a cast member in dramatically stopping a deal he knows to be misleading.

She thinks the first season was more about the relationships between the castmates and Ronald Gladden, while season two was more emotional and story oriented.

“’Jury Duty’ two was more emotional for me and I think ‘Jury Duty’ one was more of friendships and all that,” she said.

“I would definitely recommend it to all my friends and family” emphasized Sophia. “It’s just such a cool show, to see what goes on behind the scenes and everything. Just seeing their faces … Its just so fun.”