Carlota Prado is moving forward with a new set of legal actions against Mediaset after the events of 2017 tied to the reality show Big Brother. The young contestant has filed a criminal complaint naming the media group, the Zeppelin production company, and the staff who were at Guadalix de la Sierra that night. The complaint centers on a failure to provide adequate protection and relief to Prado while the incident unfolded, a claim that seeks accountability for what she characterizes as neglect of care during a vulnerable moment.
Prado has initiated additional legal proceedings, a development that follows the public release of a separate judgment concerning the assault suffered by the contestant in that period. The sentence, which determined a 15‑month prison term for José María López, confirmed the perpetrator’s responsibility for a completed sexual abuse crime and has become a part of the broader legal discourse surrounding the case. The new actions underscore Prado’s insistence on pursuing justice for what she experienced and the perceived failures of those responsible for the show’s safety net at the time.
According to reporting from El Confi TV, the former reality participant submitted a formal request to the Civil Guard in Málaga on May 8. The request seeks to file charges against Mediaset, the Big Brother production team, and the employees involved in the events, arguing that there was a lack of timely intervention when the situation was unfolding. The accusation frames the issue within a broader legal category that addresses neglect of assistance, an offense contemplated by Article 195 of the Spanish Penal Code, which concerns failures to provide aid when it is reasonably expected of others to do so in circumstances that warrant action.
The documentation compiled by Prado’s representatives highlights alleged recordings and other material presented on the show that, in Prado’s view, served to normalize or overlook the harmful conduct. She contends that after the incident occurred, she was allowed to remain in the house and continue participating in the program. The narrative presented in the complaint suggests that multiple camera feeds were revisited and made available to the declarant, and that she was granted access to the set and the living quarters despite the ongoing concerns. Critics and observers have noted that the sequence of events raises questions about the program’s responsibility to safeguard the well‑being of participants, including the provision of informed psychological support after distressing moments on screen. Prado’s account emphasizes the need for prompt, professional assistance and a clear protocol for intervention in cases of alleged misconduct within televised formats.
In discussing the potential implications, the complainant’s legal team argues that the episode reflects systemic gaps in protective measures for contestants who find themselves in situations of abuse or harassment on reality television. The case has drawn renewed attention to how broadcasters, production companies, and program staff handle sensitive incidents, the steps taken to report concerns, and the consequences for those who fail to act decisively. Supporters of Prado say that accountability in these matters is essential not only for the well‑being of participants but also for the integrity of programs that rely on real people under pressure for entertainment. Critics, on the other hand, warn against conflating on‑screen drama with real-life wrongdoing, pointing to the complexities involved in distinguishing entertainment from exploitation while navigating legal responsibilities. The discussions arising from Prado’s action contribute to ongoing debates about safety standards, participant protection, and the oversight mechanisms required in reality‑television production.
Observers note that the case could influence future policies and guidelines within the Spanish media landscape. If the court finds merit in Prado’s assertions about neglect and inadequate support, it may prompt broader changes in how production companies address participant welfare, including clearer reporting channels, mandatory psychological follow‑ups, and more transparent communication with contestants about available resources after distressing events. The evolving story also touches on the relationship between legal accountability and media ethics in a highly watched genre, where the line between personal safety and the demands of competing for ratings can become blurred. As Prado continues to pursue her legal route, the case remains a focal point for discussions about safeguarding, responsibility, and the long shadow of 2017 in the broader narrative of Big Brother’s legacy in Spain.