FKA twigs is taking her legal fight with Shia LaBeouf back to court, this time over whether she can even speak about what happened.
After settling her sexual battery lawsuit last year, Twigs is now challenging the non-disclosure agreement tied to that deal. In a new filing, she argues that the NDA itself is illegal under California law and that LaBeouf’s attempt to enforce it is another extension of the control she says she experienced during their relationship.
The issue came to a head after Twigs made public comments saying she didn’t feel safe and wanted to support other survivors. According to the lawsuit, that was enough for LaBeouf’s legal team to launch a private arbitration case accusing her of violating the agreement and seeking financial penalties.
Her legal team is pushing back hard on that, arguing that the NDA should never have been enforceable in the first place. The case leans on California’s STAND Act, which was passed after the #MeToo movement and specifically limits the use of NDAs in situations involving sexual abuse, harassment, or discrimination. Twigs’ position is that the agreement goes too far, not just restricting her from speaking about her own experience, but even limiting broader conversations around abuse.
From her side, this isn’t just about one contract. The argument is that if agreements like this are allowed to stand, they create a system where survivors can be pressured into silence even after a case is resolved. Her legal team is framing the lawsuit as an attempt to draw a clear line on that issue, not just for her, but for others who may not have the resources to challenge it.
LaBeouf’s side has previously argued that the law may not apply in the same way, pointing to technical distinctions in how the original claims were filed. That disagreement is part of why the situation is back in court, even after a settlement was reached.
At this point, the immediate goal isn’t financial damages. It’s clarity. Twigs is asking the court to formally declare the NDA invalid so it can’t be used against her again moving forward.
What this case really touches on is something bigger than the two people involved. It sits right in the middle of an ongoing shift in how the legal system treats confidentiality in abuse-related cases, and whether those agreements are protecting privacy or preventing accountability.
