#ndas

Ooooh… I’m going to have to research this account and get back to you…

Ohhh… please get back to me because that’s what we’ve been saying for YEARS. That shit gets bought and killed.

Absolutely. Same for the nonsense they spew about NDAs. An NDA cannot stop someone from speaking up about an illegal activity.

First of all, I think they can be signed pre-emptively for very famous people, like before someone even gets involved they have to sign this document not to disclose certain information they might be privy to as a precaution. I’m guessing this is not what happened between L&A.

The second way would be after the fact- the person already has information and/or access and you want to control what they can share legally, not just on the honor system. In this case, the person has leverage because in exchange for signing the agreement they can ask or be offered something out of the deal, like money or exposure. This way makes more sense in the case of L, A and co. Something was being shared, or being threatened to be shared, and it needed locked down. A might have asked or been offered provisions in the agreement which explains why she was going to events with him, might have had financial compensation or housing arrangements, etc.

We have no way of knowing if this is the case, but it would explain L’s demeanor with her and seemingly contradictory behavior.

While not a full NDA ban, it IS a change in the restriction of what they can be used for, which is a step in the right direction. As far as I can tell, it's also retroactive, so people who entered NDAs before this change goes into effect still abide by the new adjustments.

Jeffrey Epstein’s most powerful ally was silence - Gretchen Carlson and Julie Roginsky - Mon 8 Dec 2025 06.00 EST The Guardian This pattern echoes across institutions and industries. When abuse occurs, the first instinct is too often containment, not accountability. Corporations draft non-disclosure agreements that muzzle employees. Organizations force workers into arbitration, protecting executives while survivors are bound by confidentiality and pushed out the door. Even government agencies, as in Epstein’s case, have shown a willingness to trade transparency for expediency.

Names shouldn't be hidden to protect the guilty. 

Trump Faces LEGAL NIGHTMARE After Survivors FLIP THE SCRIPT Katie Phang  Feb 19, 2026 The victims and survivors of Epstein, Maxwell, and others deserve justice. But, as Julie Roginsky and Gretchen Carlson note, “Jeffrey Epstein’s most powerful ally was silence.” They join Katie Phang for a discussion on NDAs, forced arbitration clauses, and other weapons to keep the truth from coming out when abuse occurs.

Elected representatives especially shouldn't be signing NDAs to hide projects and their impact from the public they work for. 

Something I am really noticing online when it comes to discussions of eventual "behind the scenes drama", "early cancellations" and such things of media, but also "upcoming projects" for media is, that folks clearly do not understand NDAs.

NDAs are Non-Disclosure Agreements. Basically, if you work in any form of big media production, or even so much as a journalist covering this (same when you work in all sorts of other fields), you will be handed an NDA for work. I mean, I worked for a bank for a while, I had to sign an NDA basically saying. "Yo, I won't talk shit about anyone's personal finances." Chances are: If you are working, you have signed an NDA together with your work contract for something.

And the same is true with anything in terms of multimedia production. Basically anyone who works in media will sign an NDA that will cover all sorts of stuff - and might be up for adjustments later on.

So, basically, your NDA will say:

You cannot spoil upcoming projects.

You cannot speak about anything upcoming, until whoever holds to property rights gives the okay and makes an announcement.

You cannot talk about any behind the scenes drama (like beef between people - or illicit affairs happening) - unless something explicitly criminal happened.

Usually there is a script about the narrative media is having about a production, and you gotta stick to that - says your NDA.

This means the following: Just stop annoying people with your questions about the upcoming season or movie for franchise whatever. No, they will not be able to answer you whether XY happens. Because they literally signed a contract saying they owe whoever they work for a whole big bunch of money if they do.

But this also means: If you hear a rumor about someone behaving shitty or about a studio cancelling a project or something along those lines, and you ask people who worked on that about it online and they either are vague about it or deny it, this also does not have to mean anything, because chances are, they have signed an NDA, and yes, this NDA can force them to outright lie, unless they would cover up a crime.

(And let's face it, when it comes to Hollywood, people have absolutely tried to just gaslight folks into covering up crimes by having them sign such NDAs. No, this is not legal. It absolutely is not. But not everyone knows that and if like Harvey Weinstein's army of lawyers tells you, that you cannot talk about Harvey raping you, because otherwise you owe him 10 million, you might think twice about risking it.)

I am writing this, because last year I noticed both a lot. Fans bugging creators with questions about upcoming shows or movies, while the creatives reiterated several times that they could not talk about it because of their NDAs. And also fans just eating up the "official narratives" of studios about cases where probably some really bad stuff happened behind the scenes with the words of: "Well, but producer XY said so, and nobody else disagreed." Yeah, duh, they didn't. Because if that happened, they signed an NDA to not lose a word about it.