Restrictions on non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are tightening across the globe. Driven in large part by the legacy of the #MeToo movement and growing recognition that NDAs can be misused to silence victims of workplace harassment and discrimination, lawmakers in multiple jurisdictions have moved to curb their use. Employers operating in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States should be aware of significant recent and upcoming changes to the rules governing when and how NDAs may be used in employment contexts, including the commencement of Australia Victoria’s new workplace sexual harassment NDA restrictions on 1 July 2026.

Victoria has become the first Australian state to pass dedicated legislation restricting the use of NDAs in workplace sexual harassment cases. The new laws took effect on 1 July 2026, after commencement was recently brought forward by proclamation from the original 1 November 2026 date.

Under the new legislation, Victorian employers may only enter into an NDA with a worker (which expressly includes employees, contractors or volunteers) who has raised a workplace sexual harassment complaint if:

• the worker requested the NDA, and it reflects their express wish and preference;
• the worker was not subject to undue pressure or influence;
• the NDA is written in plain language;
• the worker had a 21-day review period before signing, unless waived at their request;
• the worker received the Government prescribed information statement during that period; and
• a signed acknowledgement confirms that all required conditions were met.

Critically, the legislation also gives workers an ongoing right to terminate their confidentiality obligations. From the 12-month anniversary of signing an NDA covered by the legislation, a worker may terminate any confidentiality term on seven days’ notice, without affecting any related settlement or compensation.

The restrictions apply only to “material information” about workplace sexual harassment, which is defined to mean the identity of the person alleged to have engaged in sexual harassment and details about the conduct constituting the commission, or alleged commission, of the sexual harassment. Other terms of a settlement agreement, such as the amount of any settlement payment made, are not subject to the restrictions and may continue to be covered by confidentiality obligations.

The legislation also expressly allows disclosures to specified professionals and authorities, and restricts NDAs with respondents where they would hinder investigations or disclosure to prospective employers.

In the United Kingdom, legislation is set to tighten the rules around NDAs used in the employment context. Under the new framework, any provision in an agreement that prevents a worker from making allegations or disclosures about harassment or discrimination will be classed as void and unenforceable.

Importantly, the ban is targeted, not absolute: only the confidentiality provision that seeks to silence a worker about harassment or discrimination will be struck out. The rest of the NDA can remain intact, including legitimate protections for commercial information, trade secrets and other sensitive business matters.

The measure is not yet in force and further regulations are expected to set out any limited exceptions. A government consultation closes on 8 July 2026, with the changes expected to take effect in 2027.

The proposals would not apply retrospectively. The government is also consulting on an “excepted agreement” route, under which the NDA may still be valid if safeguards are met. These are expected to include written independent legal advice, the worker’s written confirmation that they wish to enter into the NDA, a cooling-off period and provision of a written copy of the agreement. The consultation is also seeking views on whether excepted agreements should only be available after the relevant harassment or discrimination has occurred, and whether confidentiality should be time limited.

The change builds on existing whistleblowing and public interest disclosure protections, and reflects the UK’s broader move to stop NDAs being used to silence those who experience workplace wrongdoing.

In the United States, NDAs are restricted not only by the federal Speak Out Act but also by laws in at least 21 states. These statutes differ in scope, with some applying only to settlement agreements, while others extend to any employment-related agreement or provision that contains an NDA or confidentiality clause, including handbook policies or company codes of conduct. Compliance with these varying jurisdictional requirements can, in some states, be as straightforward as adding a single sentence. However, other states, such as California, Illinois, New York and Oregon, impose more complex obligations, including a mandatory period for an individual to consider an agreement and a post-execution revocation period.

Employers with Illinois-based employees face recently updated compliance obligations under amendments to the Illinois Workplace Transparency Act (WTA) that took effect on 1 January 2026.

The key changes are as follows:

• Separate consideration.Employers must provide a specific, separately identified payment or benefit in exchange for confidentiality, separate from any payment for releasing claims.
• Choice of law and venue limits.Employers cannot unilaterally impose clauses that shorten claim deadlines, apply non-Illinois law to Illinois claims, or move disputes outside Illinois.
• Protection for concerted activity.Employment agreements cannot restrict employees from acting together on workplace issues, including collective bargaining. This adds state-level protection alongside existing federal rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Expanded right to testify.Employees are protected when participating in proceedings involving unlawful conduct, including depositions and arbitration.
• Expanded remedies. Individuals who successfully challenge, or defend against, an alleged breach of a confidentiality agreement can now recover consequential damages in addition to costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees that were already available under the WTA.

Limitations on employment-related agreements remain a frequent subject of interest for state and local legislatures across the US, warranting vigilance to ensure that new contracts are fully compliant with current applicable law.

• Review how NDAs are used in practice. Employers should assess when NDAs are proposed, who initiates them, and whether template wording remains compliant.
• Build in consent, time and support. Emerging rules increasingly require worker choice, plain language, review periods and access to prescribed information before confidentiality obligations are agreed.
• Treat confidentiality as limited, not automatic. Employers should assume that confidentiality clauses may be narrowed, time-limited or terminable, particularly where harassment or discrimination allegations are involved.
• Take a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction approach. Multinational employers should avoid relying on one standard NDA template and should update settlement and employment agreement processes to reflect local rules.