Singer-songwriter FKA twigs has filed a lawsuit against her ex-boyfriend, actor Shia LaBeouf, alleging that he is attempting to enforce an "unlawful" nondisclosure agreement (NDA) to silence her from speaking about sexual abuse. The complaint, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, seeks to invalidate sections of the NDA, which the singer claims violates California law.
Core Facts & Developments
FKA twigs, whose legal name is Tahliah Barnett, accuses LaBeouf of using the NDA to "control" her for nearly a decade. Her attorney, Mathew Rosengart, stated that the lawsuit was filed in response to LaBeouf’s December 2025 arbitration claim, which sought financial damages over alleged NDA violations. Rosengart emphasized that the case is "not about money but about justice and upholding California law."
LaBeouf’s attorney, Shawn Holley, denied the claims, stating that Barnett "decided to settle the case and accepted money to dismiss her lawsuit." The dispute stems from a 2020 lawsuit in which Barnett accused LaBeouf of "physical, sexual, and mental abuse" during their relationship. She later dropped the lawsuit.
Deeper Context & Legal Arguments
The current lawsuit argues that the NDA violates California’s Stand Together Against Non-Disclosure Act (STAND), which prohibits NDAs that prevent victims of sexual harassment and abuse from speaking out. FKA twigs’ legal team claims that her statements in a December 2025 interview with The Hollywood Reporter were "laudable, generic, and benign" and did not breach the NDA.
LaBeouf’s legal team contends that the NDA was mutually agreed upon and that Barnett was not coerced into signing it. The arbitration claim filed by LaBeouf alleges that FKA twigs violated the NDA by discussing their relationship in public.
Ongoing Legal Battle
The lawsuit highlights tensions between victim advocacy and privacy rights in settlement agreements. FKA twigs’ legal team argues that the NDA is "vastly overbroad" and unenforceable under California law. LaBeouf’s team maintains that the agreement was a mutual resolution to their disputes.
The case raises broader questions about the enforceability of NDAs in abuse cases and the balance between confidentiality and victim rights.