Can we talk about NDAs

[i_saw_amy]

We presume that most people don’t talk because of the NDAs they sign - realistically how much would it cost these people she has worked work to break? 
 

I ask because I doubt breaking an NDA will break the bank with these multi millionaire celebs, and she’s worked with so many people, how has not one of them broken it?

im glad you have people like Iggy releasing statements in support, despite knowing she can get in trouble.

what about the mega stars who have so much more than her?

[nthenwkiss]

i think more than what can be done, its more of a hassle to have to deal with a lawsuit and attorneys, etc. it can get costly,

[Onyxgirl17]

I heard it was 500,000

[i_saw_amy]

I suppose 500,000 can be a costly tweet, but surely tweeting generic support isn’t breaking an NDA. 

I just find it interesting that so many people have worked with her, from presenters and their people, celebs and their people, directors, producers, managers, and everyone else in between and their people, but still not many people have said something      .

[KatieKat]

Also, someone who signed an NDA can still report criminal activity.

NDAs don’t shield people who are doing  something illegal. Like if you sign an NDA with your place of employment but then see your boss stab someone at the office …. You don’t then get sued if you call the police. 

 

[nthenwkiss]

13 minutes ago, KatieKat said:

Also, someone who signed an NDA can still report criminal activity.

NDAs don’t shield people who are doing  something illegal. Like if you sign an NDA with your place of employment but then see your boss stab someone at the office …. You don’t then get sued if you call the police. 

 

this.

27 minutes ago, i_saw_amy said:

I suppose 500,000 can be a costly tweet, but surely tweeting generic support isn’t breaking an NDA. 

I just find it interesting that so many people have worked with her, from presenters and their people, celebs and their people, directors, producers, managers, and everyone else in between and their people, but still not many people have said something      .

me too - like mario lopez and ryan seacrest can speak out. they are not afraid of britney's team.

[mangotango]

I wrote this in another thread, but I'll be lazy and just post some of it here too. 

In terms of damages, there is no set amount or such, it all depends on the particular NDA - both what it covers and potential damages. You can also put in stuff that gives the disclosing party an advantage, by for example stating that any violations etc. will be handled in arbitration - that is often to the advantage of the party demanding the NDA. 

But beyond that, NDAs are really tricky. A lot of NDAs are actually not enforceable for a variety of reasons including being too vague in terms of what is confidential,  the scope being too broad or unreasonable, lack of consideration for both parties, often does not cover info coming from a third party or if the info is already known publicly or things disclosed prior to the NDA being signed etc. Not to mention, NDAs are not supposed to be used to cover up illegal activity.

Still, it can be very scary for the party who signs it - especially if they were not able to retain a copy for later review (as in the case of Iggy). It will be a gamble to violate the NDA. But - it can be a gamble for both parties too. And that is particularily important to note in this case I think. Because there is strength in numbers here, partly because the more who do what Iggy did, the less likely the disclosing party (i.e. Britney's team) will proceed with suing. But also because it could shed light on the validity of these NDA. And if they would end up taking for example Iggy to court for violating the NDA, but the court does not find the NDA to be enforceable, that may likely affect the other NDAs and could lead to those agreements being challenged as well.

Anyway, as other people have mentioned - an NDA can't silence someone into not being able to report a crime or being a witness in a case or such. I think the issue there rather becomes that one person alone will feel very powerless to do anything. What is Iggy going to report, that Britney is not allowed to have more than x sodas? Her statement of witnessing that matters and helps support what Britney claims in regards to control and abuse, but Iggy witnessing that alone will be difficult to make a case of. Of course, other people may have witnessed other stuff, just using Iggy as an example here to illustrate how things in isolation may not look like much and people who feel isolated may not be able to do much, but together these things paint a bigger - and more serious - picture.

[Brenton]

I can only speak to English law, but in theory it’s not worth a great deal. The remedies are either damages (but it’s hard to quantify loss once information has been disclosed in breach of an NDA) or more likely an injunction as protective relief to stop information being made public in advance of the breach. The reason why many people are speaking now is effectively because the information is no longer confidential now that Britney has spoken out. Happy to answer any further questions (again, stressing from an English law perspective).