• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should NDAs be allowed...

Should NDAs be allowed... (see post #1)

  • Yes, they should be allowed as the parties involved agree.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • They are fine in court verdicts, not in private agreements.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Undecided / Other.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    3

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Should Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) be legally allowed when public safety is involved?

Example: Auto Manufacturer A (AMA) puts faulty brakes in one of their models for three model years. Brakes failures occur and injuries and deaths occur, spurring multiple lawsuits. AMA, for various reasons, settles each lawsuit out-of-court and demands the plaintiff sign an NDA.

It's a safety issue. People are getting hurt or killed. The NDA prevents others who suffer the same fate from researching why it may have happened to them. The NDA prevents the feds from getting involved. The NDA keeps the amounts of settlements in the dark (not really a primary point here, but it's there). The NDA keeps culpability in the dark.

Is this kosher? It is legally, but should it be allowed?

Should court verdict vs private settlement make a difference? Does AMA'a NDA make them complicit to further injuries and deaths considering that they know better than anyone there's a pattern regarding their product?

Please note that this question only applies to when public safety is concerned. This thread does not involve trade secrets, business deals, and so on.
 
Should Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) be legally allowed when public safety is involved?

Example: Auto Manufacturer A (AMA) puts faulty brakes in one of their models for three model years. Brakes failures occur and injuries and deaths occur, spurring multiple lawsuits. AMA, for various reasons, settles each lawsuit out-of-court and demands the plaintiff sign an NDA.

It's a safety issue. People are getting hurt or killed. The NDA prevents others who suffer the same fate from researching why it may have happened to them. The NDA prevents the feds from getting involved. The NDA keeps the amounts of settlements in the dark (not really a primary point here, but it's there). The NDA keeps culpability in the dark.

Is this kosher? It is legally, but should it be allowed?

Should court verdict vs private settlement make a difference? Does AMA'a NDA make them complicit to further injuries and deaths considering that they know better than anyone there's a pattern regarding their product?

Please note that this question only applies to when public safety is concerned. This thread does not involve trade secrets, business deals, and so on.

They are used as leverage, along with money, to buy silence without admitting actual guilt.
The intent is to hide guilt and hopefully squelch other lawsuits, in order to save money.
It is not honest nor ethical behavior.
 
Absolutely not in that scenario. First off, they are not binding on anyone who doesn't actually sign them. The federal government has no requirement to respect an NDA and in fact, in the case of court proceedings, they should not be respected at all. If you're on the witness stand, you have to answer honestly no matter what you've signed, no exceptions. I don't care if that makes these companies unhappy or not.
 
Back
Top Bottom