I’ve never had a problem with organizations using confidentiality agreements for legitimate purposes. Businesses have information they need to protect, and there are plenty of circumstances where an agreement restricting disclosure makes sense. But I have a problem when those same agreements are used to prevent somebody from talking about sexual abuse.

As of October 1, Alabama law draws a line between the two.

Trey’s Law, enacted as Senate Bill 30, makes provisions in nondisclosure agreements, employment contracts, settlement agreements, and other agreements void and unenforceable when they prohibit someone from disclosing sexual abuse or facts related to it.

The law covers conduct that would qualify as certain sexual offenses under Alabama law, regardless of whether anyone was criminally charged or convictedA judgment that a person is guilty of an offense, entered after a guilty plea, a trial verdict, or another lawful court process.. A person’s ability to speak about abuse shouldn’t depend entirely on whether prosecutors brought a case.

The legislation was inspired by Trey Carlock, who was sexually abused as a child at a Texas sports camp. According to accounts presented during the legislative effort, a settlement agreement prevented him from discussing what happened. His experience became part of a broader effort to change how confidentiality agreements can be used in sexual abuse cases.

Alabama’s law applies to agreements entered into, executed, or amended on or after October 1, 2026. It doesn’t automatically cancel every existing confidentiality agreement, and it doesn’t invalidate an entire settlement simply because one provision can’t be enforced. The law targets the part that restricts disclosure of sexual abuse, leaving unrelated terms, including compensation, intact.

The timing is interesting because Montgomery recently came under scrutiny for requiring police officers to sign nondisclosure agreements. Those agreements raise separate questions about government transparency, and Trey’s Law doesn’t invalidate them simply because they’re NDAs. But both developments raise questions about how much control an employer should have over what its employees can say.

I think Trey’s Law takes a reasonable approach. Someone can agree to settle a civil claim, accept compensation, or keep certain financial arrangements confidential without surrendering the ability to talk about what happened to them.

An NDA might be presented as a routine condition of employment or settlement. The organization has an attorney, the agreement has been reviewed, and everybody is expected to follow the terms. But the existence of a signed document doesn’t automatically make every restriction appropriate.

The person signing may be in a very different position from the organization asking for their silence. They may need the settlement money, want the matter resolved, or simply be exhausted by the process. Those circumstances can influence what somebody is willing to sign, particularly when the alternative is another lengthy dispute.

Organizations have a legitimate interest in protecting confidential information. They don’t have the same legitimate interest in using a contract to prevent someone from disclosing sexual abuse.

I also think there’s a practical question for the people running those organizations. If you’re dealing with an allegation serious enough that you’re negotiating a settlement or considering a confidentiality provision, what exactly are you trying to protect?

Sometimes there are good reasons to protect someone’s privacy. A victimA person who suffered harm or loss because of an alleged or proven crime. In court documents, the term may also refer to the person named in the charge. may not want personal information made public, and respecting that choice is entirely appropriate. But protecting someone’s privacy is different from requiring their silence.

Trey’s Law doesn’t prevent organizations from resolving disputes or using confidentiality agreements for other legitimate purposes. It simply takes away their ability to enforce a particular kind of silence. And I don’t see why someone should have to give up the right to discuss sexual abuse just to reach an agreement.