UK's NDA safeguards face scrutiny after Walliams and Brand

By Grace Kim

From 1 October 2025, the UK has barred enforcement of NDAs designed to stop crime victims or direct witnesses from disclosing to police, regulators, advisers or support services.

Section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 applies to NDAs entered into on or after that date. Separate 2025 legislation covers NDAs in higher education and employment.

UK minister for women Bridget Phillipson said the government had not gone far enough in tackling the abusive use of non-disclosure agreements. She was commenting as scrutiny focused on David Walliams and Russell Brand.

An investigation by The Guardian and ITV News said Walliams used his power and status to prey on young women for sex. Walliams denies the allegations of improper behaviour. Phillipson was also responding to Brand’s conviction for rape and sexual assault.

In both cases, women with stories to tell were said to have felt silenced after signing NDAs, according to The Guardian’s account.

What do the UK’s current rules cover?

The Guardian’s explainer defines an NDA as an agreement between two or more parties that seeks to keep information confidential. Employers often use the provision, sometimes called a “gagging clause,” in employment contracts or settlement agreements to protect commercial or other sensitive information.

The government’s guidance says a “good NDA restricts the use of the ideas and information to a specific permitted purpose”. It also recognizes that people who suffered discrimination or harassment may want an NDA for personal reasons.

One example is a workplace bullying victim who may not want a future employer to learn that they made a complaint.

The legislative changes followed the rise of the #MeToo movement and a series of scandals in which alleged victims said NDAs left them unable to speak publicly. Their scope now differs by setting:

• A 2025 higher-education ban stops institutions from entering NDAs with staff, students, members or visiting speakers over complaints involving sexual abuse, harassment, sexual misconduct or other forms of harassment and bullying.

• Under section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, NDAs entered into from 1 October 2025 cannot enforce terms that prevent crime victims or direct witnesses from disclosing to police, regulators or people who may provide advice and support.

• The Employment Rights Act 2025 voids any NDA between an employer and a worker when it seeks to stop the worker from discussing harassment, discrimination or the employer’s response to allegations.

Each measure blocks a defined use of NDAs rather than banning every confidentiality agreement.

Could ministers extend the rules?

The government has already consulted on how the Employment Rights Act could apply in a way that changes its scope. It asked whether protections should extend beyond standard employees to self-employed and agency workers.

Campaigners say coverage should extend to anyone in the workplace, including people on internships. Ministers have also ensured that NDA signatories can report matters to the police.

Campaigners want the government to widen the list of people a victim may approach. Their options include mental health professionals, religious or community leaders and members of the media.

The consultation puts wider workplace coverage on the agenda, while access to advice remains a separate campaign target.

What changes do campaigners want?

Campaigners want the UK to draw on international practice, particularly in the US. Some US states prohibit NDAs relating to sexual misconduct and harassment entirely, extending beyond the employer-worker relationship.

In some states, an NDA cannot be used to conceal government decision-making or to use public money. A large number of states also broaden their definition of prohibited NDAs to include non-disparagement clauses.

Those clauses can prevent signatories from speaking negatively about another party or acting in a way that harms the other party’s interests. Campaigners say the UK could use those wider bans as a reference point.

Campaigns such as the one pioneered by Zelda Perkins, who broke an NDA to expose the criminality of Hollywood director Harvey Weinstein, also seek changes to how NDAs operate. Perkins suggests employers should have a duty to tell employees that an NDA does not affect their whistleblowing rights, their rights under health and safety legislation or their right to report to police.

Campaigners also regard it vital that exemptions allowing NDAs in harassment cases account for pressure on victims to surrender their rights. They want legal advice to be available and the link between a financial settlement and an NDA to be broken.

The US model broadens what governments prohibit, while the Perkins agenda targets pressure, legal advice and settlement terms.

Ministers’ next test is whether they extend worker protection to contractors and interns, widen the support route for NDA signatories and require employers to spell out the reporting rights that an NDA cannot remove.