this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2026
609 points (99.2% liked)
Videos
18469 readers
784 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only (aside from meta posts flagged with [META])
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
- AI generated content must be tagged with "[AI] …" ^Discussion^
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And so, under the guise of protecting trade secrets, companies conveniently shield themselves from the disclosure of all kinds of misconduct.
There are whistleblower protections for reporting such things, even if under NDA
Yes, but that doesn’t stop the lawsuit from starting. It may be a way to dismiss the suit after the fact, but you’ve already had to pay for a lawyer. And that’s the entire point. Even if you’re legally in the right, you’ll still get taken for a ride just to prove that right.
That's funny. You're funny.
Yes, in theory. However, under the U.S. legal system, very few people will risk being sued for an alleged breach of an NDA, since it involves a civil lawsuit that can result in astronomical legal costs—potentially even if you were to win the case.
So, in most cases, the mere threat of financial ruin—which can very easily result from the exorbitant legal fees—is enough.
Which is an entirely different issue that has nothing to do with NDAs in general. NDAs in the US are pretty much useless either way, since corps will sue you to hell and back if you say anything they consider a "secret", no matter how arbitrary it is or what documents you signed.
Well, if that were the case, companies wouldn't insist on NDAs, would they?
I also don't quite understand how you came to the conclusion that NDAs have nothing to do with the fact that any kind of legal dispute in the U.S. costs a lot of money.
Just to be clear: I am fully aware that NDAs can certainly serve a legitimate purpose when it comes to protecting trade secrets, which can of course be necessary and sensible. In practice, however, they are unfortunately all too often used to hide illegitimate activities from the public, as this post here demonstrates quite impressively. It is simply absurd that elected officials can sign an NDA and then, citing it, withhold information from the public about an obvious conflict of interest.
Have they signed NDAs?