On March 25, 2026, FKA twigs (Tahliah Barnett) filed a lawsuit against Shia LaBeouf challenging the legality of a non-disclosure agreement that was included in their 2020 sexual battery settlement. The singer and dancer is arguing that the NDA is “vastly overbroad” and violates California’s STAND Act (Stand Together Against Non-Disclosure Act), which explicitly prohibits NDAs that silence victims of sexual harassment and abuse. This case represents a significant legal challenge to how settlements in abuse cases have historically been structured, potentially affecting thousands of similar agreements across the entertainment industry and beyond.
The lawsuit directly challenges not just the terms of the NDA itself, but the entire premise that victims should be silenced as part of a settlement deal. Unlike traditional litigation where both sides simply move on after an agreement is reached, this case puts the NDA itself on trial—asking a court to declare it unenforceable under state law. For anyone with an NDA from a settlement involving harassment, assault, or abuse, this case could have immediate practical consequences, as it tests whether these agreements can legally prevent victims from speaking about their experiences.
Table of Contents
- What Led to the Original 2020 Lawsuit and Settlement?
- Understanding California’s STAND Act and Why It Changes Everything
- The Current 2026 Lawsuit—What Exactly Is Barnett Asking the Court to Do?
- The Arbitration Battle—How LaBeouf Tried to Use the NDA as a Weapon
- What This Case Means for Other Victims with Restrictive Abuse Settlement NDAs
- Practical Guidance for Victims Who Have Signed Abuse-Related NDAs
- What Comes Next in the FKA Twigs Case and Its Broader Implications
What Led to the Original 2020 Lawsuit and Settlement?
In December 2020, FKA twigs filed a comprehensive lawsuit against Shia LaBeouf alleging sexual battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The lawsuit documented a pattern of alleged misconduct during their relationship, and rather than proceeding through years of litigation and trial, the parties reached a settlement in July 2025—nearly five years after the original complaint was filed. As part of that settlement agreement, a non-disclosure agreement was included, which was standard practice in settlement negotiations at that time.
However, the settlement included terms that prevented Barnett from discussing her experience, which created a conflict with the legal landscape that was shifting around her. When she gave an interview to The Hollywood Reporter in October 2025 discussing how she felt safer after leaving the relationship, LaBeouf’s legal team responded by filing what has been characterized as a “secret arbitration complaint,” suggesting the interview violated the NDA terms. This escalation from settlement to post-settlement legal warfare illustrated how broadly these NDAs had been written and how they were being used as weapons to continue controlling the narrative after a case had supposedly been resolved.
Understanding California’s STAND Act and Why It Changes Everything
California’s STAND act, which went into effect to protect abuse victims, fundamentally rejects the premise that an NDA can legally prevent someone from speaking about their experience with sexual harassment, sexual assault, discrimination, harassment based on protected characteristics, or wage and hour violations. The law recognizes that NDAs have historically been used as tools of control by the more powerful party in a dispute—in this case, a well-connected actor with legal resources could use the NDA to ensure the victim stayed silent, even after the case was settled and closed.
The STAND Act allows for limited exceptions only in narrow circumstances: for example, the amount of money received in a settlement (which party doesn’t want to disclose their payout) or information about trade secrets or proprietary business practices. However, it explicitly bars NDAs from preventing someone from disclosing their own experience of abuse. The problem with many older NDAs, including the one at issue in Barnett’s case, is that they were written broadly before this law took effect, using language like “you cannot discuss the settlement, the claims, the conduct at issue, or any facts related to this agreement.” That blanket language runs directly into conflict with the STAND Act’s protections.
The Current 2026 Lawsuit—What Exactly Is Barnett Asking the Court to Do?
By filing her March 2026 lawsuit, FKA twigs is not trying to breach the settlement agreement itself or get more money. Instead, she is asking a court to declare that specific provisions of the NDA are unlawful under the STAND Act and therefore void and unenforceable. This is a narrowly targeted legal challenge rather than an attempt to undo the entire settlement. She wants a judicial ruling that will allow her to speak about her experience without fear of being sued for breach of contract or forced into arbitration.
This strategy differs from simply ignoring the NDA and hoping LaBeouf doesn’t sue. By proactively filing this lawsuit, Barnett is forcing the issue into the open and creating a legal record. If she wins, the court’s decision could apply not just to her case but serve as precedent for other victims with similar language in their NDAs. The timing is also significant: by filing in March 2026, months after the arbitration demand was dropped in February 2026, Barnett is maintaining momentum on this issue while highlighting that even though LaBeouf backed off the arbitration threat, the underlying NDA dispute remains unresolved and harmful.
The Arbitration Battle—How LaBeouf Tried to Use the NDA as a Weapon
Before Barnett filed her current lawsuit, LaBeouf had filed what she describes as a “secret arbitration complaint” in 2025, apparently triggered by her October 2025 interview with The Hollywood Reporter. In that interview, Barnett discussed feeling safe after the relationship ended—a statement about her own feelings and experience. LaBeouf’s response was to invoke the arbitration clause in the NDA, effectively telling her that even discussing how she felt was a violation of the agreement. The arbitration process would have been private and confidential, allowing LaBeouf to continue controlling the narrative while Barnett would have been unable to respond publicly.
This illustrates a critical problem with broad NDAs in abuse settlements: they can be weaponized after the case is supposedly over. The party with more resources (LaBeouf, with his legal team and financial backing) can keep filing complaints and threats over language in an agreement, forcing the less-resourced party (Barnett) to either stay completely silent or hire attorneys to defend herself. Eventually, in February 2026, LaBeouf agreed to drop the arbitration demand, but this concession doesn’t solve the fundamental problem. Barnett still cannot speak freely without legal jeopardy, which is precisely why she filed the current lawsuit asking for a court to rule the NDA unenforceable.
What This Case Means for Other Victims with Restrictive Abuse Settlement NDAs
The FKA twigs case is significant because it directly tests how California’s STAND Act applies to NDAs that were signed before the law was passed or that use overly broad language. If Barnett prevails, it could invalidate similar provisions in hundreds or thousands of other settlements involving abuse, harassment, or discrimination. Victims who have been silenced for years might suddenly have legal grounds to speak about their experiences. However, there is a significant caveat: older cases where the statute of limitations has passed, or where the victim is no longer interested in litigating, won’t necessarily be reopened just because the STAND Act now exists.
Additionally, this case highlights the gap between what the law says and what settlements still require. Many attorneys and settlement negotiators have not yet fully adapted to the STAND Act’s requirements, and some victim advocates argue that the law itself has loopholes. For instance, someone could still be required to keep confidential the amount of money they received, which effectively discourages other victims from seeking justice because they cannot compare their settlements or talk about how much they were compensated. The FKA twigs case might prompt legal reform, but that process could take years.
Practical Guidance for Victims Who Have Signed Abuse-Related NDAs
If you are a survivor of sexual harassment, assault, discrimination, or other misconduct and you signed an NDA as part of a settlement, California’s STAND Act may protect your right to speak about your experience even if the agreement says otherwise. You do not need to wait for a court ruling in Barnett’s case to consider your options, though having a favorable court decision would certainly strengthen your legal position. The law is on your side in California, but the practical question is whether you want to risk a legal dispute or whether you want to consult with an attorney who specializes in employment or abuse-related matters.
A lawyer can review your specific NDA language and advise you on what you can and cannot discuss under both the existing agreement and the STAND Act. Some attorneys may offer representation on a contingency basis or pro bono for cases with significant public interest, particularly if your situation involves a high-profile defendant or if your case could help other victims. Organizations that advocate for survivors of abuse can also provide referrals to attorneys who understand both the law and the unique trauma of speaking out after being silenced for years.
What Comes Next in the FKA Twigs Case and Its Broader Implications
The legal proceedings in Barnett’s case will likely take months or years to conclude, as courts typically take time to rule on motions and substantive legal arguments. LaBeouf’s legal team will presumably argue that the NDA was a binding contract negotiated in good faith by both parties, that it does not directly prevent Barnett from reporting abuse to law enforcement or regulators, or that the challenged provisions are severable (meaning if some parts violate the STAND Act, the rest of the agreement can remain intact). However, California courts have been increasingly receptive to interpreting the STAND Act broadly in favor of victims.
Regardless of the outcome, the case has already shifted the conversation around abuse settlements. Future settlements will likely include STAND Act-compliant language from the start, potentially limiting NDAs to truly confidential business information rather than restricting victims’ ability to speak. For Barnett specifically, the case represents a rare opportunity to challenge the silence she was forced into, and for the broader community of abuse survivors, it represents a legal test case that could open doors to speaking their truth.
You Might Also Like
- Singer FKA twigs Alleges Shia LaBeouf Coerced Illegal NDA During Abuse Settlement
- FKA twigs Sues Shia LaBeouf Claiming He Forced Her to Sign an Illegal NDA
- Kirby McInerney Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Super Micro Computer
Open Settlements You Can Claim Now
Browse current class action settlements accepting claims — several require no proof of purchase: