A Charity Quote Cost Shia LaBeouf the FKA twigs NDA

FKA twigs is free of the nondisclosure clause Shia LaBeouf tried to collect on. On October 5, 2026, her lawyers told Los Angeles Superior Court he had agreed to terminate and void it, and she withdrew the March complaint that called the gag unlawful.

The fight did not turn on a new account of their 2018 and 2019 relationship. It turned on a few lines about two charities, and on a California statute that already treats gags like that as dead paper.

The Quote About Safety and Two Charities

Twigs, born Tahliah Barnett, settled her 2020 sexual-battery case in July 2025. Months later she sat for an October 2025 cover interview and was asked whether the deal left her with a sense of safety.

No, I wouldn’t say I feel safe. I feel really passionate about being involved with organizations such as Sistah Space and No More, to help survivors in any way that I can. I think it’s less about me at this point and more about looking forward. Just, you know, moving on with my life.

FKA twigs, October 2025 cover interview

She did not name LaBeouf in that answer. The March 2026 complaint later called the remarks “laudable, generic, and benign.” His camp treated them as a breach of the settlement’s nondisclosure terms and moved to collect.

LaBeouf Answered With a Secret Arbitration

Court papers from the October filing say LaBeouf commenced arbitration against Barnett on December 19, 2025, seeking money based on those statements. Her March complaint described a “secret arbitration complaint” that “improperly sought exorbitant monies.”

Mathew Rosengart, who represented Britney Spears in her conservatorship fight, took the matter over and called the demand an attempt to bully her and extract money. On February 4, 2026, her lawyers answered that the nondisclosure terms were illegal and asked that the claim be dropped.

He later dismissed the arbitration. He still would not concede that the clause itself was unenforceable, which is why she filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on March 25, 2026, asking a judge to say so. The 22-page complaint sought a declaration and her attorneys’ fees. It did not seek damages.

Shawn Holley, LaBeouf’s lawyer, said at the time that they were surprised by the claim she was being silenced. Holley said Barnett had signed after a months-long mediation run by a former judge, with her own counsel in the room, and that she had accepted money to dismiss the 2020 case.

Why California Treats These NDAs as Void

California’s Stand Together Against Non-Disclosure Act, the STAND Act, is Senate Bill 820. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed it in 2018. For settlement deals entered on or after January 1, 2019, a clause that stops someone from disclosing facts about a sexual-assault or sexual-harassment claim is void as a matter of law and against public policy.

The 2025 deal sat well after that date. Code of Civil Procedure section 1001 also voids any provision in a settlement that prevents or restricts disclosure of those facts, and it bars a court from entering an order that does the same thing by stipulation.

WHAT SECTION 1001 ALLOWS AND BLOCKS

LaBeouf’s lawyers argued the statute did not reach him because the 2020 case, they said, pleaded sexual battery rather than sexual assault. The 2020 complaint accused him of sexual battery, assault, and mental abuse. Section 1001 lists “an act of sexual assault” in so many words. That defense never had to be tried, because he later agreed to kill the clause.

Donations Were on the Restricted List Too

Rosengart wrote that this was a case about justice and law, not money, and that Barnett had nothing to gain professionally or financially. The filing said she was also acting for women who lack the resources to fight similar paper.

The March complaint attacked the December claim on three grounds and then pointed at clauses that went beyond her own story.

WHY THE MARCH FILING CALLED THE MONEY CLAIM EMPTY

• The quote: Even a valid NDA, the complaint said, would not be breached by a vague answer that never named him.
• The statute: The nondisclosure terms were unlawful under the STAND Act, so they could not be enforced at all.
• His own words: He had discussed the relationship in a video interview, the filing said, while still treating the same confidentiality terms as binding on her, which undercut any claim of harm.

Beyond that, Rosengart flagged what he called the absurdity of terms that tried to “restrict the manner in which Ms. Barnett could donate to charities related to domestic and/or sexual violence or abuse.” The suit said the settlement sought not only to silence her about her own story but also to silence her from supporting other survivors.

From the 2020 Suit to the October Filing

They met while making Honey Boy and dated in 2018 and 2019. In December 2020 she sued in Los Angeles, accusing him of sexual battery, assault, and infliction of emotional distress, including strangulation and a pattern of control that cut her off from friends. He said in an email then that many of the allegations were not true, and that he was ashamed of a history of hurting people closest to him.

The 2020 case never reached a jury. Lawyers for both sides, Bryan Freedman for Barnett and Shawn Holley for LaBeouf, announced a private deal in July 2025 and said they were committed to forging a constructive path forward, wishing each other personal happiness, professional success, and peace. The details stayed confidential. The NDA was part of that package.

THE DATES THAT UNWOUND THE GAG

1. December 2020: Barnett files the first Los Angeles lawsuit over the 2018 and 2019 relationship.
2. July 2025: The parties settle out of court; the deal includes a nondisclosure clause.
3. October 1, 2025: She answers a question about safety by naming Sistah Space and No More.
4. December 19, 2025: LaBeouf starts arbitration seeking money over those remarks.
5. February 4, 2026: Her lawyers tell his side the NDA is illegal and ask that the claim be dropped.
6. March 25, 2026: After the arbitration is dismissed but the clause is not conceded, she files the 22-page STAND Act case.
7. October 5, 2026: He agrees the disputed provisions are terminated and void; she asks the court to dismiss her complaint.

That is five years and ten months from the first filing to the voiding, not a new trial of the 2020 facts. The October papers say the resolution, together with dismissal of the December 19, 2025 arbitration, means she is free to discuss her own experience and to support the charitable causes of her choosing without fear of reprisal.

The Groups She Named Keep Doing the Work

Sistah Space is a London charity founded in November 2015 after the 2014 murder of Valerie Forde and her 22-month-old daughter, Baby RJ. It gives specialist support to African and Caribbean heritage women affected by domestic and sexual abuse. Its own pages list FKA twigs as an ambassador and an anchor donor, which makes the arbitration even harder to square: the sentence used against her was a nod to a group she already backed.

NO MORE is a global campaign dedicated to ending domestic and sexual violence, built around a blue unifying symbol and more than 1,400 allied organizations. Naming it in a magazine interview is ordinary survivor advocacy. Treating that as a billable breach is what put the NDA in front of a statute written, after Harvey Weinstein-era secret deals, to stop exactly that move.

Some write-ups of the October papers framed the outcome as a judge striking the clause. The docket move was simpler. He agreed to end it, and she walked the March case out of court. The STAND Act still did the quiet work of making a courtroom fight a bad bet.

He Voided the Gag Rather Than Test It

Rosengart told the court the result was a win for the principle that women who speak out about sexual abuse should not be silenced by NDAs that contravene California law. He said she is proud to keep speaking and to advocate for women who may lack the resources to defend themselves.

Twigs stood up for something larger than herself, all female survivors of sexual abuse. After Mr. LaBeouf’s now-dismissed, failed December 2025 arbitration against twigs, this important victory completely frees her to discuss her experience, advocate for other women who might be less privileged, and support the charitable causes of her choice.

Mathew Rosengart, attorney for FKA twigs, in a statement

Holley, speaking for LaBeouf, struck a different tone. She said he wishes twigs nothing but the best in her life and career and, to that end, has agreed to end their long-standing dispute, adding that twigs has spoken about this matter for years and there is now nothing to prevent her from continuing to do so.

The 38-year-old singer can now name Sistah Space and No More, and talk about the years behind those names, without a confidential-arbitration invoice attached to the sentence. That is the clause he agreed to tear up, after trying to bill her for using it.

Frequently Asked Questions

What Does California’s STAND Act Ban in a Settlement?

It bans a provision that prevents or restricts disclosure of factual information related to a filed claim of sexual assault, sexual harassment, or certain workplace and housing harassment and discrimination claims. A court may not enter a conflicting secrecy order. The claimant may ask to keep her identity out of the papers, and the parties may still hide the dollar amount paid. Those last two carve-outs sit in subdivisions (c) and (e) of section 1001 and are separate from the ban on gagging the facts.

Did a Judge Rule That the FKA twigs NDA Was Illegal?

No. LaBeouf agreed that the disputed nondisclosure provisions “are terminated and void,” and Barnett then withdrew the March 2026 complaint, which had asked for a declaration that the terms were unlawful, invalid, and unenforceable plus her attorneys’ fees. There was no damages demand in that case and no public ruling that parsed every line of the July 2025 deal.

What Did FKA twigs Say That Led to the Arbitration?

On October 1, 2025, in a cover story photographed on September 10 at Ballet Hispánico in New York, she was asked if she felt a sense of safety with the lawsuit behind her and answered that she would not say she felt safe, then named Sistah Space and No More as groups she wanted to help. The published answer does not mention LaBeouf by name.

Why Did His Lawyers Say the STAND Act Did Not Apply?

After the February 4, 2026 letter, they argued he was not covered because the 2020 case, in their telling, sued him only for sexual battery, not sexual assault, and that the STAND Act does not cover him as a sexual batterer. The 2020 complaint also accused him of assault. The October 2026 papers closed the fight without a ruling on that theory.

Disclaimer: This article is news reporting on public court filings and on-the-record statements. It is informational only and is not legal advice about nondisclosure agreements, sexual-battery claims, or California’s STAND Act. Anyone facing a confidentiality clause or an abuse-related settlement should consult a licensed California attorney who can review the actual contract and the docket. Figures, quotes, and case status reflect the cited filings and statements as of the dates given in the piece and can change if later papers are filed.