Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What are notable high-profile sexual misconduct settlement amounts in the 1990s–2020s and which cases involved nondisclosure agreements or civil judgments?
Executive Summary
A number of high-profile sexual misconduct settlements from the 1990s through the 2020s reached into the hundreds of millions and, in some institutional mass-claim contexts, into the billions, with prominent examples including a $4 billion Los Angeles County settlement, a $2.6 billion Boy Scouts of America plan, and large payouts tied to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and the University of Southern California; reporting on totals and labels varies across outlets and summaries [1] [2] [3]. Over the same period, the legal landscape around non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) has shifted sharply: federal and many state laws now limit enforceability of gag clauses in sexual-harassment and sexual-assault settlements, while some large historic settlements nevertheless involved confidentiality terms or were resolved through civil judgments rather than confidential releases [4] [5] [6] [2].
1. Why the headline numbers matter—and where they come from
When reporting on institutional payouts, aggregation and claims timing drive the headline totals: some figures reflect structured bankruptcy plans covering many claimants (Boy Scouts’ $2.6 billion), some represent negotiated global settlements across decades of allegations (Los Angeles County’s $4 billion), and some are the sum of diocesan or university settlements across multiple cases (Archdiocese of Los Angeles, USC) [1] [2]. Journalistic lists that compile “largest settlements” often pull from court filings, bankruptcy trust proposals, and publicly announced settlement agreements, which can diverge in how they treat attorney fees, insurer contributions, and whether amounts are prospective caps or already-dispersed funds. That matters because two reports can list different numbers for the same organization depending on whether they include insurer payouts, trust distributions, or proposed versus paid sums [1] [2].
2. Big institutional settlements that made headlines
Several institutional resolutions stand out as emblematic of large-scale accountability and complex litigation: Los Angeles County’s reported $4 billion settlement addressing abuse in juvenile facilities; the Boy Scouts of America’s approximately $2.6 billion bankruptcy plan to resolve widespread abuse claims; and multi-hundred-million-dollar settlements involving the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and the University of Southern California, where reporting has cited figures like $800–852 million or higher depending on the accounting approach [1] [2] [3]. These outcomes typically emerged from protracted litigation, bankruptcy processes, or comprehensive settlement negotiations and reflect both the volume of claimants and the institutional capacity to fund large resolutions. Different reports sometimes list alternative totals because of timing and inclusion choices [1] [2].
3. Which cases used nondisclosure agreements, and how laws are changing
Historically, many individual settlements in sexual-misconduct cases included confidentiality provisions, though public summaries do not always document that status; large institutional settlements sometimes preserved claimant anonymity or confidentiality as part of global resolutions [2]. Legislative and federal changes have rapidly curtailed enforceability of such clauses: the bipartisan Speak Out Act limits enforcement of pre-dispute NDAs covering sexual harassment or assault, and by mid-2025 nearly 20 states had passed laws restricting NDAs in sexual-misconduct contexts. Texas enacted a law (commonly referred to as Trey’s Law) in 2025 voiding confidentiality provisions in agreements that bar disclosure of sexual abuse and applying retroactively unless a final non-appealable declaratory judgment exists [4] [5] [6]. This means recent and future settlements are less likely to hide allegations behind NDAs.
4. Civil judgments versus confidential settlements—who paid and how
Not all large payouts were confidential settlements; some arose from civil judgments and jury awards, and others from bankruptcy trust formations where funds are paid pursuant to court-supervised plans. A notable civil verdict example is a $15 million Title IX jury award against Thomas Jefferson University, underscoring that institutions can face public verdicts rather than private buyouts [7]. Legal strategies vary: plaintiffs may seek a public verdict to avoid gag terms and establish precedent, while institutions may opt for global settlements to cap exposure and resolve many claims at once. The distinction affects public accountability and precedential impact—judgments create public records and appellate decisions, while confidential settlements historically limited public knowledge of the underlying conduct [7] [2].
5. What to watch next—policy, reporting, and unresolved gaps
With statutory restrictions on NDAs expanding and major settlements increasingly scrutinized, future reporting is likely to emphasize whether settlements are public, structured through bankruptcy trusts, or entered with enforceable confidentiality. Current summaries of large payouts still leave gaps: public lists often omit whether individual agreements contained NDAs, how funds were allocated among claimants, and whether insurers or entities other than the named defendant contributed. Researchers and journalists should therefore seek detailed court filings, trust distribution reports, and legislative texts to clarify whether a given payout was a confidential settlement, a civil judgment, or a court-supervised bankruptcy plan. Those documentary sources determine whether a settlement advances transparency or primarily limits it [1] [2] [4] [7].