Does Google’s Non-Disclosure Agreement With Employees Overreach? (Guest Blog Post)
24 01 2017Guest Post by Sharon K. Sandeen
In the lead-up to this year’s Presidential election, there was a lot of chatter about the next “bomb-shell” bit of information that might be revealed about Donald Trump, particularly after his now-infamous pussy-grabbing comments. Recently, Tom Arnold, a contestant on “Celebrity Apprentice,” revealed that he is in possession of a video of the President-elect making additional inappropriate comments, but it has not yet been released due to a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) that all those associated with the production were required to sign, reportedly including a $5 million liquidated damages clause.
For those who value freedom of speech and the press, and information diffusion more broadly, the fact that an NDA might be used to hide pertinent information about a person who is running for political office (and who is about to become the President of the United States) is very troubling. But the concern transcends political discourse, as a Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) lawsuit against Google, recently filed by “John Doe” in San Francisco, reveals. While NDAs have long been used to protect trade secrets, the central issues posed by the lawsuit concern both the legitimate scope of protected information and, more troubling, allegations that Google uses its NDA to intimidate employees.
The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/01/does-googles-non-disclosure-agreement-with-employees-overreach-guest-blog-post.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
