1. Home
2. Web First
3. NDAs, while more common, aren’t always…

NDAs, while more common, aren’t always ironclad, legal experts say

By Amanda Robert

February 24, 2026, 9:25 am CST

Before Travis Kelce proposed to Taylor Swift, rumors began swirling about their prenuptial agreement and what it might and might not contain. One thing is probable: It likely contains confidentiality clauses and nondisclosure agreements—tools that have become common in this day and age when private lives don’t often stay that way.

“Since the rise of social media and how everybody posts about everything, it’s become more prevalent that people include clauses to protect their privacy in the event of a breakup,” says Jennifer Brandt, the chair of the family law group at Cozen O’Connor. “You can’t go out and disparage your spouse or former spouse.”

“And those clauses are becoming more and more common for everyday people as well,” adds Brandt, who also chairs the ABA Section of Family Law.

Actor Charlie Sheen, pop star Britney Spears and golfer Tiger Woods are among celebrities who have asked romantic partners to sign NDAs, according to news reports. Sheen also reportedly required anyone who entered his home to sign an NDA, while singer Justin Bieber has made friends and other guests sign NDAs before leaving his parties.

But NDAs, which also are used in the workplace and in political circles, aren’t always ironclad. Legal experts say how and when they are enforced often depends on the circumstances. In the past, they have been deemed unenforceable if they were too broad, covered information that is publicly available or tried to protect illegal activities.

For instance, President Donald Trump has a long history of using NDAs, several of which have been found to be unenforceable. In one case, a federal judge ruled that the sweeping language in an NDA that Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign required its employees to sign was so broad that it was unreasonable. The campaign later agreed as part of a class-action settlement to permanently void those NDAs.

In another infamous example—portrayed in 1999 film The Insider starring Russell Crowe—former Brown & Williamson executive Jeffrey Wigand broke his NDA to go public with damning information about the tobacco industry. In his case, he gave a deposition that was later reported on by the Wall Street Journal. After that information became public, 60 Minutes also decided to air an interview with Wigand.

The lawsuit filed by Brown & Williamson against Wigand because of his public disclosures was dismissed as part of the 1997 settlement agreement between attorneys general from a number of states and the tobacco industry.

Public pushback

In recent years, NDAs have been scrutinized for protecting perpetrators of sexual abuse and harassment.

“There are certainly very legitimate purposes for reputational NDAs to protect private facts and information and experiences and events,” says Marc Simon, the chair of the entertainment and sports law department at Fox Rothschild. “Where it becomes problematic for the public figure is when the NDA is seeking to prevent the disclosure of objectively bad conduct—you know, personal conduct that is problematic.”

The use of NDAs by disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein is a prime example. In 2018, the Weinstein Co. canceled every NDA between Weinstein and dozens of women who accused him of sexual misconduct. The film studio acknowledged that Weinstein, who is now a convicted sex offender, used the agreements as a “secret weapon to silence his accusers.”

The public accusations against Weinstein helped ignite the #MeToo movement, which also led to changes in the use of NDAs, says Alexandra Coll, a professor at the City University of New York School of Law. She co-founded the Purple Campaign, a nonprofit organization that addressed workplace sexual harassment.

Workplace-related NDAs initially protected proprietary business information before being extended to any information that was in a company’s interest to keep confidential, Coll notes. After it became public that this often included harassment and abuse, she helped advocate for new laws to address those issues.

In 2022, President Joe Biden signed the Speak Out Act, which limits the enforceability of NDAs in cases involving sexual harassment and assault in the workplace. California, Washington and New York are among states that also have passed laws restricting the use of NDAs in workplace sexual assault cases.

“These state and federal laws, in a moment, changed the legal landscape for a whole set of NDAs,” Coll says. “There were all these arguments happening in court about whether they were enforceable or not, and then the law just changed the baseline for them.”

Even in states without these laws, employers may hesitate to enforce NDAs in workplace disputes involving sexual misconduct allegations because of the cultural shift in the wake of the #MeToo movement, Coll adds.

“There’s an interesting gray area that exists with whether certain organizations would still enforce NDAs that are legally enforceable and whether they think that’s in line with their values or how they want to treat employees,” she says.

Tricky situations

Back in the family law setting, NDAs are becoming more ubiquitous not just in prenuptial agreements but in final decrees of dissolution of marriage.

NDAs commonly cover financial records, photographs, communications between parties or other private information, according to Marlene Pontrelli, a member and co-chair of the domestic relations and family law practice group at Dickinson Wright. They also outline exceptions, such as the ability to share information with legal counsel, and consequences for disclosure, such as the right to damages.

While NDAs can be beneficial, providing parties and their children freedom from public scrutiny, they also can be troubling if they keep an injured spouse from seeking medical treatment, counseling or even advice from family and friends, Pontrelli says.

“The #MeToo movement helped bring to light some of the controversy surrounding NDAs in the wake of cover-ups for sexual assault or harassment, but the laws that limit enforcement of the NDAs in such situations provide little help to spouses in a family law situation,” she says.

In Simon’s experience, public figures in many cases decide against enforcing an NDA that has been breached because it means they have to validate conduct they would rather not talk about in court or with the media.

“There’s this paradox, because on the one hand, a public figure wants to protect their privacy,” Simon says. “On the other hand, if there are actually facts and circumstances that are, let’s call embarrassing and/or detrimental to their reputation, then the mere fact of seeking to enforce the NDA will bring more attention to them.”

It also can be tricky to draft an NDA that protects a well-known celebrity and remains enforceable if the information it covers is released by someone else, Brandt adds.

“Once the information is out there, it’s out there,” Brandt says. “And then it’s ‘Can the celebrity prove that their reputation has been harmed by this, and it’s that person’s fault?’”

The “deterrence factor” may be more powerful in dissuading breaches of NDAs, particularly if people understand they won’t access a celebrity’s inner circles if they don’t agree to keep quiet, Brandt adds.

“Whoever is drafting [Taylor Swift’s] NDAs obviously is doing a good job of making sure they have enough teeth that people are not going to violate them, that they’ll keep her information private,” she says.

See also:

How Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s engagement is a lesson in prenups

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.