Frequently Asked Questions

What if a survivor wants an NDA to ensure opposing parties cannot disclose information about them or their case?

The primary goal of "Trey's Law" legislation is to give child sexual abuse and trafficking victims power and agency over their own stories after enduring childhood trauma. While each state's bill language will be different, these bills should not prohibit unilateral confidentiality provisions that would protect victims' identities or other details they'd prefer to keep private. Many survivors of child sexual abuse and trafficking choose to never disclose their stories, while others find going public and/or filing legal action to be a critical step in their healing journey. Those are decisions they should be able to make whenever they are ready to do so, with full autonomy and without restriction.

Institutions have testified in favor of unilateral confidentiality: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops committed to abiding by this principle by entering into confidentiality agreements to protect the identity of survivors who do not wish to have their name disclosed (at their request), but will disclose the names of credibly accused priests. The Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops has also endorsed "Trey's Law" by including HB 748 and SB 1587 in their list of bill positions.

Why is “Trey’s Law” important if NDAs cannot be used to cover up crimes?

In most states, NDAs may be deemed as unenforceable or void by a court when they attempt to suppress reporting a crime.

“Trey’s Law” remains critical because:

Many survivors of child sexual abuse have been placed under NDAs by institutions for civil (not criminal) claims. Institutional negligence, such as a summer camp continuing to employ a known child abuser, is a civil liability (and not criminal). The unenforceability of NDAs for criminal acts does not apply to institutional negligence.
NDAs are used as an intimidation tactic regardless of their enforceability. NDAs are commonly used in settlements related to criminal activity regardless of the enforceability as a tactic for silencing survivors and protecting perpetrators. Most survivors who have signed an unenforceable NDA do not know that they are unenforceable, and are fearful of the possible repercussions for breaking the terms of the NDA.
NDAs with a mix of enforceable and unenforceable components put survivors at risk if they share their stories. These types of NDAs still commonly inhibit the survivor from disclosing the facts about a grooming process, or making any disparaging or negative comments about the offender other than the facts of the criminal activity itself. It is an expensive and risky process to understand what parts of the NDA are and are not enforceable. Discerning the level of enforceability either requires engaging legal counsel to analyze the NDA, or allowing the courts to decide which parts of the NDAs are enforceable if civil action is taken against a survivor for breaking their NDA.

Should survivors be allowed the right to request an NDA?

While this sounds good in theory, it is critical that broad NDAs are not allowed "at the victim's request." New York currently bans NDAs in settlements related to workplace abuse, harassment, or discrimination unless the complainant requests one. In practice, this has provided offenders and liable institutions with a loophole, whereby opposing parties agree to settle only if the plaintiff requests an NDA. This approach has resulted in additional challenges for minor victims, especially if they ever seek relief from their NDA since it appears they "requested it" in the first place. "Trey's Law" seeks to protect victims (and their guardians) in civil disputes from being coerced into making this "request" by Defendants or their own counsel.

How does "Trey's Low" relate to the Speak Out Act?

The Speak Out Act was passed federally in 2022, and it prohibits the use of predispute NDAs and non-disparagement agreements for survivors and witnesses of sexual harassment and assault in the workplace. While this landmark legislation restricts the use of NDAs, The Speak Out Act does not apply to child sexual abuse and trafficking victims.

The Speak Out Act is only relevant to adult victims in workplace contexts and solely eliminates the misuse of NDAs in employment agreements enacted prior to a civil dispute and settlement agreement.

Are there examples of defendants taking legal action against victims who break their NDA to speak out about their abuse after a settlement was reached?

Yes. There are many examples of Defendants in civil child sexual abuse and trafficking cases who use NDAs to intimidate victims into silence, even beyond the details in writing. Offending parties may threaten victims will lose their settlement dollars if they ever break the NDA or share the amount they received (especially if an insurer is involved). Even worse, at least one Kanakuk victim and his family have publicly spoken about being federally sanctioned for refusing to sign an NDA to achieve settlement, which cost them $40,000 out of pocket to defend.

What are victims typically prohibited from saying in child sexual abuse settlements?

NDAs in civil CSA settlements take many forms and vary in length. Some NDAs are included in the settlement agreement as a paragraph-long clause, while others are multi-page standalone agreements. It is common for these NDAs to prohibit the victim from disclosing any information or terms of the settlement, details regarding the incident of abuse, and any public or private statements that criticize the Defendant(s) or portray them in a negative light.

Will survivors receive smaller settlements if NDAs are not allowed?

Both empirical data and trauma-informed attorney testimonies have shown that settlement amounts are not impacted by the omission of NDAs. A 2025 large-scale study of 30,000 cases in California, where NDAs were banned as part of the STAND Act related to sexual assault, indicates that "the elimination of NDAs does not seem to have depressed settlement sums" (Engstrom, et al, 2025).

Texas-based attorneys who already refuse NDAs for their clients as part of a trauma-informed legal practice provided the following responses when asked about whether the omission of NDAs reduces settlement amounts:

"I have never in 30 years of practice had. deal blow up because of this issue."
“Not true. For example, we usually negotiate a settlement for $100 (hypothetically). And at the very end, defense says they want an NDA. I counter with, ‘then payout will be $150!’ They say no. And then we haggle over what, if any, confidentiality is included. But it doesn’t affect the $100 original settlement amount.”
"Taking NDAs off the table actually helps with achieving a better settlement amount, because opposition cannot hold that over the victim's head in the negotiation process."