Here at the Housewives Institute, we really only have three rules: (1) No Tre huggers. (2) No supporting reunions longer than three parts. (3) Follow the Eileen Davidson Accords.

If you’ve been reading this newsletter and/or my recaps for a while, you’ve certainly heard of the Accords, but since it’s been almost a decade since their inception and we just experienced a huge wave of new Housewives, I thought it was time to explain exactly what they are. This nonexistent binding agreement first came to be way back in 2014 as a reminder to all of us (but especially me) to give Real Housewives a bit of a grace period before we officially judge whether or not we like them. It is named after soap star Eileen Davidson, whom I took an immediate dislike to when she joined RHOBH’s fifth season. Here’s what I wrote when she was introduced:

Eileen would not turn out to be as crazy as her hair in those confessionals, but she did turn out to be shockingly vital during her too-short Housewives tenure. The tipping point happened during the infamous Amsterdam dinner on the cast trip that season, when Eileen crossed swords with Kim Richards and came out on top with her iconic line: “Beast? How dare you!”

Eileen’s mostly staid demeanor in those first episodes belied a mind like a steel trap and a willingness to tussle with the best if they came for her. My favorite thing about her, however, was not a particular moment but a series of them. We often get Housewives saying something like, “I didn’t say that — I told you not to leave your husband,” then the editors will cut to the same woman days ago saying the exact opposite. Not our Eileen. She’d say, “No, what I said is that I never particularly liked you,” and then they would cut to the footage of her saying exactly that.

Because I ended up being so wrong about Eileen, I “wrote” and “signed” the Accords, which allows every new Real Housewife a five-episode probation before I will officially judge them. (“Friends of” don’t count, nor do people on other Bravo shows like Summer House or Vanderpump Rules.) We need time to let them settle in, really figure out who they are and what we should hate — or maybe even love — about them.

For an inverse example of why the Accords are necessary, look no further than Annemarie Wiley, this year’s most reviled new Housewife. Much like Eileen, she didn’t arrive during the season premiere (that honor was saved for season five’s other addition, Lisa Rinna). Annemarie walked into the weed dinner and seemed reasonable and like she was simply trying to catch up on the drama. Yes, she centered herself a little too much and declared that she was “a hugger,” but otherwise, she was fine. Imagine if I wrote then, “I like this Annemarie lady.” No way! By the time we reached her fifth episode, she had already come for Sutton’s esophagus, pissed off numerous members of the cast, and got embroiled in several scandals thanks to her husband. It took only five episodes before the real Annemarie was revealed to be annoying, unnecessary, and a little too strident. That’s the beauty of reality television: We’ll eventually get to the truth of a person, and we usually don’t even have to wait that long to get there.

Finally, an important addendum to the Accords: Just because we wait five episodes to render our judgment on a Housewife doesn’t mean it lasts for their entire tenure. I loathed Angie K., our first intergalactic Housewife, when she was a “friend of” and during most of her first season, but I’m coming around now. I have gone from loving to hating Candiace Dillard Bassett so many times I don’t know how I feel about her anymore. I’ve even started to come around to Sutton Stracke, who has had a great reunion so far (but the needle hasn’t quite moved to fully liking her yet). This is what’s great about being a Housewives fan: There are so many opportunities for judgment — of a ’Wife, of a fight, of an overly complicated drink order — and we should allow ourselves to relish each and every one, but not until considering all the evidence. However, the jury will eternally be out on Eileen’s denim jumpsuit.

The big news in Bravo world these days isn’t about the shows but the string of allegations the network is currently facing. At the end of February, Brandi Glanville sent a letter to Bravo accusing Andy Cohen of sexual harassment for a video he sent her. Next up was Leah McSweeney claiming that Andy does cocaine with some of the ’Wives and created a “rotted workplace culture.” (Andy called it a “shakedown.”) The next day, Rachel Leviss sued Tom Sandoval and Ariana Madix (but not Bravo) for invasion of privacy and other claims related to the intimate video that kicked off Scandoval. These join several other suits, including one by Caroline Manzo saying the network encouraged sexual harassment when it hired Glanville for the seemingly shelved UGT season they were both on (Glanville denied the allegations) and a similar suit from Marco Vega, the butler on UGT season two. 

Most fans immediately dismissed the suits since they felt like revelations we’d already heard or figured out. But could they be worse than we thought? I had an email consultation with Cesie and Angela, the two actual attorneys who host The Bravo Docket, which looks at the intersection of reality television and the law — two things that seem to cross over way more than they probably should — to get a better sense of whether Andy & Co. should be actually worried or just merely annoyed. They wrote back in tandem, so don’t be confused by the royal we.

We had three big lawsuits over the past couple of weeks: Brandi Glanville’s, Leah McSweeney’s, and Rachel Leviss’s. Can you explain the similarities and the differences between them?

Just a clarification: Brandi sent a demand letter to NBCUniversal, Shed Media [which produces several shows for Bravo], and Shed’s parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery. She hasn’t yet filed a lawsuit like Leah’s and Rachel’s.

However, there are many similarities across their accusations. First, Leah’s and Rachel’s allege that Bravo and the production companies influenced certain unwanted behavior through pushing each of them to drink alcohol. Leah is the only one who states that she has a substance-abuse issue, which constitutes a disability under the ADA, and she brings claims related to that. However, Rachel did not name Bravo or production as defendants, so her accusations seem misplaced.

We do not have access to Brandi’s letter in full, so our understanding is limited to what is quoted in news articles, but it appears that Brandi’s letter takes a similar tone. While it doesn’t accuse Bravo of pushing alcohol on her, she claims Bravo essentially threw her under the bus to absolve them of blame: “This is a transparent attempt to cut ties with Ms. Glanville in a manner intended to deny her recourse, discredit her, and ward off damaging revelations that Ms. Glanville is uniquely positioned to reveal.” As far as Brandi is concerned, we doubt she wants discovery on her own text messages and behaviors to Andy Cohen and cast members, and we would be surprised if she actually filed a lawsuit.

Do you think any of these suits will see the inside of the courtroom? If so, do you think any of them have a good chance at winning?

Technically speaking, it depends on whether Bravo will move to force each into arbitration. We understand from the limited portions of agreements we have seen that they contain mandatory arbitration provisions. However, that does not apply to employment harassment claims. It should apply to every other claim, though, so there is a strong chance that many of Leah’s claims are arbitrated.

For the sake of discussion, if we assume everything is technically fine, we think Leah’s claims are mildly strong given that substance-use and mental-health disorders are covered disabilities. Bravo may have an incentive to settle with her. We think Rachel’s claims against Tom Sandoval are the strongest and hope she does not settle with him and takes him to trial. One of the bigger obstacles Rachel will have is proving that the harm she suffered (in the form of reputational harm and lost future earnings) was due to what happened with the tape and not any other factor like being disliked for engaging in an affair. Regardless, him supposedly recording her without her consent would allow her to get at least $5,000 per recording taken.

Most of the biggest bombshells from the lawsuits — Andy’s dirty texts to Brandi, Leah alleging that Andy does cocaine with Housewives — were met with a yawn by fans. Will the law take them more seriously?

Our guess is that the court won’t even blink at the accusation that Andy does cocaine with Housewives because it is far removed from Leah’s claims. Another bombshell is that Rachel alleges that Tom Sandoval admitted on-camera to recording her without her consent and that production allowed Sandoval to cover that up. If there is video of Tom making that admission, it is absolutely relevant and discoverable.

In a legal sense, how bad is all of this for Bravo, Andy Cohen, and the production companies that make our favorite shows?

It is really hard to evaluate the claims at this point because we only have one side of the story and neither Rachel nor Leah attached any exhibits (or, in Housewives parlance, receipts). Leah made mention of producers telling her that she couldn’t do certain things for her sobriety or not offering her accommodations, but it is unclear if Leah has documentation to back any of this up.

Leah’s claims about alcohol and production are countered by the fact that the RHONY reboot contains multiple cast members that do not drink — Jenna Lyons, for example — and Jill Zarin almost never drank, Marge of RHONJ doesn’t drink, Kandi Burruss has been on Bravo for over a decade without drinking, and Lala Kent has been sober for years on Pump Rules. Leah herself admitted that she began drinking again six months before filming started on the RHONY season 12 premiere. She also dedicated her book to Andy Cohen and said the experience was amazing and named a chapter of her book “Hurricane Leah” after the episode where she got drunk and naked and threw the tiki torches into the pool. Moreover, in a portion of her book, she admitted that Bravo offered her psychological services. There is just too much contradictory information coming from Leah such that even if her claims were warranted, her evidence is questionable.

Brandi’s allegations are confusing because Brandi isn’t named in Caroline Manzo’s lawsuit and Bravo has not formally responded. Her argument seems to be that Bravo is twisting something consensual into worrisome behavior, but that seems like a response she has to Caroline and not Bravo. It’s confusing.

There’s speculation online that these are part of a coordinated attack against Bravo. Is there any indication of that in the filings?

Brandi and Rachel are using the same attorneys, and they are the same attorneys Bethenny Frankel used to commence the Reality Reckoning. We think that this is why Rachel’s lawsuit contains so many allegations against Bravo. Rachel’s reads more like a public-relations piece than exclusively limited to her revenge-porn and privacy claims, so it appears to be part of a coordinated effort against the network. We can’t speak to whether it is warranted, but it does read like there is a similar narrative across each.

In the first part of the RHOBH reunion, Andy Cohen pointed out that Annemarie Wiley, the season’s only new Housewife, was getting a lot of hate on the internet based on her minimal contributions to this season. Not only a fighter but also entirely wrong, and way too concerned about Sutton’s esophagus, she’s one of the worst freshman Housewives we’ve had in a long time. Things are not looking good for her return trip to Beverly Hills, but at least Annemarie can take solace in the knowledge that there have been worse one-and-done ’Wives than her. Let’s look at the five for whom one season was one too many.

5. Kimberly Bryant (RHOC): The original one-and-done, she moved to Chicago after the first season wrapped and didn’t even film the reunion in Vicki Gunvalson’s back yard. (Remember the pool with the grotto?) She wasn’t great on the show, but even worse is that she has tried to distance herself from it ever since leaving.

4. Peggy Sulahian (RHOC): Another OC disappointment, the “100th Housewife” did literally nothing the whole season other than get English words wrong and put her fingers on Meghan King Edmonds’s lips to shut her up. This is MKE, destroyer of Brooks. How dare she treat her like that?

3. Kim Fields (RHOA): This former Facts of Life and Living Single star joined up to replace NeNe Leakes when she ran off to Hollywood. Sadly, no one from Hollywood could ever replace NeNe, and she just seemed out of place the whole season.

2. Jennie Nguyen (RHOSLC): Not only was her husband talking about getting a sister wife, once it was uncovered she had shared a bunch of offensive and racist Facebook posts, that was the fastest Bravo ever fired anyone. (Speaking of which, does Ramona still have a job?)

1. Diana Jenkins (RHOBH): The princess of Liplikia has to top this list. Yes, she submitted herself as a new villain for Sutton to hate, but she was just a dud who allegedly came after Garcelle Beauvais’s kids with a bot army. It’s one thing to go quickly; it’s another to make a mess on the way out.

Real Housewives of Potomac: Gentlemen, ladies, and theydies, it may have taken 15 episodes, but I am humbled to announce that we got our first solid episode of Potomac this season. Now, is the rubric currently on a curve? Absolutely. The bar is somewhere on the floor of Ashley and Gizelle’s LuLaRoe knockoff warehouse. [Season 8, Episode 15]

Vanderpump Rules: I’m glad this episode finally brought us some catharsis, some movement, something that comes close to forgiveness, but then right before it hugs you, it wallops you in the face with a banana-cream pie. [Season 11, Episode 6]

Summer House: As bad as it is for Kyle and Amanda, it is even worse for Carl and Lindsay. Oh, boy. What did you think would happen when America’s premiere sandwich artist finally showed up in the Hamptons? [Season 8, Episode 2]

Below Deck: The next morning, Jared is still upset about missing his call with his daughter, with the added benefits of now being hung-over and having run out of data (for phones, this is the closest equivalent experience to being hung-over). [Season 11, Episode 5]