Have any accusers who settled later spoken publicly or tried to void their agreements?
Executive summary
Yes — multiple accusers who accepted confidential settlements later spoke publicly or otherwise sought to negate the secrecy those agreements were supposed to impose, with high-profile examples including Zelda Perkins and Laurie Luhn and broader legal and regulatory moves that have undercut enforceability of some NDAs in harassment and whistleblower contexts [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Public defections: victims who broke their NDAs and told their stories
Several accusers who had signed settlement agreements with nondisclosure clauses nevertheless went public, most notably Zelda Perkins, a former assistant to Harvey Weinstein who said she had signed an NDA as part of a settlement but later spoke to journalists about Weinstein’s conduct [3] [1], and Laurie Luhn, who settled claims against Roger Ailes for millions yet later decided to speak despite extensive confidentiality language reported in her agreement [2].
2. Legal limits and courtroom precedents that helped challengers
The practical power of NDAs has been eroded in some contexts by court rulings and enforcement actions: whistleblower law has produced decisions finding overly restrictive confidentiality provisions unlawful (the Macktal line of cases), and the SEC has penalized companies for NDAs that chilled reporting of fraud, creating precedents that have allowed some signatories to challenge or ignore secrecy clauses on public-policy grounds [4].
3. Legislative changes that opened the door to speaking or voided clauses
Lawmakers and regulators have moved to restrict NDAs in harassment cases: states like California and New York have enacted rules limiting or voiding confidentiality provisions in settlements involving sexual harassment, discrimination, or retaliation, and Congress and the White House backed the Speak Out Act and related reforms that curtail employers’ ability to force silence, changes that both validate and facilitate accusers’ efforts to speak or seek to nullify secrecy after the fact [5] [6] [7].
4. Why some accusers try to void agreements — and the counterarguments
Advocates and many victims argue NDAs hide wrongdoing and deter law enforcement or public awareness, prompting signatories to speak out or attempt to void clauses; legal scholars and some practitioners counter that abolishing NDAs entirely could reduce incentives to settle and expose victims to retaliation or public dispute that harms their employment prospects, a tension visible in debates captured by FRONTLINE and legal commentary [3] [8].
5. Limits: many NDAs remain effective, and speaking risks legal exposure
Despite the high-profile defections and new laws, NDAs can still be enforceable when properly drafted and where no clear public-policy bar exists, and some plaintiffs remain bound or afraid to speak because a breach can trigger injunctions or damages claims; scholars note the case law is piecemeal and many settlements still include secrecy provisions that successfully keep matters private [9] [10].
6. The pattern: individual breaches, precedent-driven challenges, and legislative pressure
The record from reporting and legal analysis shows a three-part pattern: individual accusers sometimes publicly break NDAs (Perkins, Luhn) or groups publicly declare they are breaching secrecy [2] [1], courts and regulators have in some instances found restrictive settlements unlawful [4] [10], and statute-making has increasingly carved exceptions or voided NDAs in harassment cases — together producing a growing, though incomplete, pathway for settled accusers to speak or attempt to void their agreements [2] [4] [5].