Yes, FKA twigs filed a new lawsuit in March 2026 against Shia LaBeouf alleging that the nondisclosure agreement from their previous 2020 sexual battery settlement violated California’s Stand Together Against Non-Disclosure Act (STAND Act). The lawsuit claims LaBeouf coerced her into accepting NDA provisions that are now legally unenforceable under California law, which prohibits NDAs that prevent abuse survivors from discussing their experiences.
Specifically, twigs alleges that after reaching a settlement in late 2025, LaBeouf filed a secret arbitration complaint against her in response to an October 2025 Hollywood Reporter interview where she discussed feeling “a sense of safety,” and when she demanded he acknowledge the NDA’s illegality, he refused—prompting her to sue to establish that the agreement’s unlawful provisions cannot be enforced against her. This case is significant because it tests the limits of California’s STAND Act, which took effect specifically to nullify portions of NDAs in sexual abuse, discrimination, and harassment settlements. The case also highlights a troubling pattern: even after settling a sexual abuse claim, survivors can face retaliation through legal mechanisms designed to silence them—precisely what the STAND Act was meant to prevent.
Table of Contents
- What Was the Original 2020 Lawsuit Between FKA twigs and Shia LaBeouf?
- How Did the Settlement Lead to the Current NDA Dispute?
- What Is California’s STAND Act and How Does It Apply Here?
- What Exactly Makes NDA Provisions “Unlawful” Under the STAND Act?
- Did LaBeouf’s Arbitration Complaint Constitute a Campaign of Intimidation?
- What Are the Broader Implications for Abuse Survivors?
- What Happens Next in the Twigs v. LaBeouf NDA Case?
- Conclusion
What Was the Original 2020 Lawsuit Between FKA twigs and Shia LaBeouf?
In December 2020, fka twigs (born Tahliah Barnett) filed a lawsuit against actor Shia LaBeouf alleging sexual battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, LaBeouf engaged in relentless abuse during their relationship, including violent physical attacks, strangulation, knowingly transmitting a sexually transmitted disease, and making threats to crash his car unless she declared her love for him. The allegations paint a picture of sustained psychological and physical abuse designed to control and intimidate her.
The lawsuit was significant because it broke the silence around LaBeouf’s behavior with a public figure willing to detail allegations in court documents. While LaBeouf has denied wrongdoing in various statements over the years, the December 2020 filing forced the allegations into the legal system and public discourse. The case attracted media attention partly because both parties are entertainment industry figures, but more importantly because it represented one of the earliest high-profile uses of legal action to hold a male actor accountable for alleged sexual violence.
How Did the Settlement Lead to the Current NDA Dispute?
In late 2025, FKA twigs and Shia LaBeouf reached a settlement to resolve the sexual battery lawsuit. The terms of that settlement included a nondisclosure agreement—a common element in civil settlements where both parties agree not to discuss the case, its terms, or the underlying allegations. However, according to twigs’ new lawsuit, LaBeouf subsequently filed a “secret arbitration complaint” against her, seeking what she characterizes as “exorbitant” damages.
Critically, this retaliation was allegedly triggered by an October 2025 Hollywood Reporter interview where twigs discussed her abuse experience, including a quote about feeling “a sense of safety.” This sequence reveals a problematic dynamic: twigs settled the case, presumably believing she had resolved the dispute and could move forward, only to face a new legal action from LaBeouf based on statements she made publicly before the settlement was finalized. It’s unclear from available reports exactly what triggered the arbitration complaint or whether LaBeouf’s legal team claimed the October 2025 interview itself violated the NDA. What is clear is that by early March 2026, when twigs filed her new lawsuit, she and LaBeouf had reached an agreement for him to drop the arbitration claim—yet he reportedly still refused to acknowledge that the NDA’s unlawful provisions were unenforceable.
What Is California’s STAND Act and How Does It Apply Here?
California’s Stand Together Against Non-Disclosure Act (STAND Act) is landmark legislation designed to protect abuse survivors from being silenced by settlement agreements. The law nullifies any provision in a settlement agreement that prevents someone from discussing conduct that they reasonably believe constitutes sexual abuse, harassment, discrimination, or related misconduct. Critically, the STAND Act doesn’t require survivors to prove their allegations were true—only that they reasonably believed the conduct they experienced was abusive. The STAND Act applies retroactively, meaning it covers settlements reached before the law took effect.
In the FKA twigs case, even though her settlement with LaBeouf was finalized in 2025, the STAND Act can unwind the NDA provisions that prohibited her from discussing the sexual battery allegations. However, there’s an important limitation: the STAND Act doesn’t automatically void entire NDAs. Instead, it voids only those specific provisions that restrict discussion of abuse. Other confidentiality provisions—about settlement amounts, for example—may remain enforceable. Twigs’ lawsuit specifically alleges the NDA contains “unlawful” provisions under the STAND Act, suggesting the agreement went beyond reasonable confidentiality and attempted to silence her about the abuse itself.
What Exactly Makes NDA Provisions “Unlawful” Under the STAND Act?
An NDA provision becomes unlawful under the STAND Act if it prevents someone from discussing conduct that constitutes or relates to sexual abuse, harassment, discrimination, or retaliation. For example, an NDA that says “you cannot discuss the abuse you experienced or the facts underlying your allegations” is directly prohibited. Similarly, an NDA that imposes financial penalties on a survivor for speaking about abuse is void. The law recognizes that silencing survivors perpetuates abuse culture and prevents the public from understanding patterns of misconduct.
In twigs’ case, the alleged unlawful provisions would likely include any clause that prevented her from discussing LaBeouf’s conduct—the strangulation, the threats, the assault, the STD transmission. However, the STAND Act doesn’t prevent all confidentiality. For instance, a settlement agreement can still protect the financial terms of the deal or other non-abuse information. The distinction matters legally: a court would need to carefully parse the NDA to identify which specific provisions violate the STAND Act and which remain valid. Twigs’ lawsuit presumably alleges that LaBeouf’s NDA went too far in restricting her ability to discuss the abuse itself, not merely the settlement’s financial details.
Did LaBeouf’s Arbitration Complaint Constitute a Campaign of Intimidation?
Twigs’ lawsuit alleges that LaBeouf’s arbitration complaint and his subsequent refusal to acknowledge the NDA’s illegality constitute a “campaign of intimidation”—essentially retaliation designed to silence her. This framing is legally significant because it connects his post-settlement actions to the abuse pattern itself: if he settled a case involving allegations that he made threats and sought to control her, then filing a new legal action targeting her for speaking publicly could be seen as a continuation of that controlling behavior. The timeline supports this reading.
Twigs gave a public interview to Hollywood Reporter in October 2025 discussing her experience, including references to feeling safe. LaBeouf then filed an arbitration complaint, reportedly seeking damages based on her quotes from that interview. Even though he later agreed to drop the arbitration complaint by March 2026, he allegedly refused to explicitly acknowledge that the NDA’s provisions restricting her speech were illegal and unenforceable. From twigs’ perspective, this created an impossible situation: she had settled the case, attempted to discuss her experience publicly, faced legal retaliation, and even when LaBeouf agreed to stop the retaliation, he wouldn’t formally concede that her fundamental right to speak had existed all along.
What Are the Broader Implications for Abuse Survivors?
The FKA twigs case highlights a critical vulnerability in how sexual abuse settlements work, even with the STAND Act in place. Many survivors don’t know their rights under the STAND Act, don’t have the resources to challenge NDAs in court, or face pressure to accept unfavorable terms simply to escape their abuser and move forward. The fact that twigs—a well-known artist with resources and public platform—still faced this situation underscores how much harder it is for less-visible survivors.
Additionally, the case demonstrates that the STAND Act’s existence doesn’t automatically prevent abusers from filing retaliatory legal actions; it just means those actions may ultimately fail. The case also reveals a loophole in settlement dynamics: an abuser can refuse to explicitly acknowledge that an NDA provision is unlawful, forcing the survivor to file yet another lawsuit to establish what should be obvious. This creates additional litigation costs and emotional burden for someone already traumatized. Advocates have pointed to cases like this as evidence that statutory protections like the STAND Act need to be paired with clearer enforcement mechanisms and presumptions that favor survivors, rather than allowing abusers to game the system by technical refusals to concede the obvious.
What Happens Next in the Twigs v. LaBeouf NDA Case?
As of March 2026, FKA twigs’ lawsuit against Shia LaBeouf regarding the unlawful NDA is ongoing. The case will likely focus on whether the NDA provisions genuinely violate the STAND Act and whether a court will order their removal or declare them unenforceable. LaBeouf’s legal team may argue that the NDA was appropriately narrow, restricted only non-abuse information, or that twigs’ claims don’t fall within the STAND Act’s scope. However, given the specific allegations in the original case (strangulation, assault, threats), any NDA provision that prevented her from discussing those facts would be difficult to defend.
Beyond the immediate legal outcome, this case may set precedent for how courts interpret the STAND Act and how aggressively they will enforce its protections. If courts consistently side with survivors like twigs in declaring NDA provisions unlawful, it strengthens the STAND Act’s deterrent effect—abusers and their lawyers may become more cautious about including overreaching silence clauses. Conversely, if courts find narrow interpretations of what the STAND Act protects, the law’s impact may be limited. The case is also likely to encourage other survivors to challenge NDAs from past settlements, potentially reopening conversations about abuse that had been legally silenced.
Conclusion
FKA twigs’ March 2026 lawsuit against Shia LaBeouf represents a critical test of California’s Stand Together Against Non-Disclosure Act. By alleging that the NDA from her 2020 settlement contains unlawful provisions that violate her right to discuss sexual abuse, twigs is challenging not just LaBeouf’s specific agreement, but also the broader practice of using settlements to silence survivors. The case exposes how even well-resourced public figures can face retaliation for speaking about their abuse, and how abusers can weaponize legal mechanisms to intimidate survivors even after reaching a settlement.
For other abuse survivors navigating settlements, the case underscores the importance of understanding rights under the STAND Act and seeking legal guidance before signing any NDA. The outcome of twigs’ lawsuit may determine how courts enforce the STAND Act going forward and whether similar NDAs from past settlements can be successfully challenged. If you believe an NDA from a settlement restricts your ability to discuss abuse, consulting with an attorney familiar with California’s STAND Act and similar state laws is critical to understanding your rights and options.