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.

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 is the stance that the Catholic Church has taken on NDAs. 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.

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.

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.

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.