FKA twigs is free to speak after Shia LaBeouf voids disputed NDA

FKA twigs is free to discuss her experiences and support survivor-focused causes without facing the confidentiality provisions that became the center of her latest legal dispute with Shia LaBeouf. In an October 5 filing in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the singer, whose legal name is Tahliah Barnett, asked to dismiss her 2026 lawsuit after LaBeouf agreed that the disputed nondisclosure terms in their earlier settlement were terminated and void.

The dismissal resolves the narrow question Barnett brought to court this year: whether LaBeouf could enforce provisions that she said unlawfully restricted her speech. It does not produce a new ruling on the abuse allegations in her original case. Barnett sued LaBeouf in 2020, alleging sexual battery, assault and emotional distress during their relationship. LaBeouf denied the allegations. The two reached a private settlement in July 2025 before a scheduled trial, leaving the underlying claims without a jury verdict.

The confidentiality fight developed after that settlement. According to Barnett’s 2026 complaint, LaBeouf initiated arbitration in December 2025 after she told The Hollywood Reporter that she did not feel safe and wanted to help survivors through organizations including Sistah Space and No More. Barnett said the arbitration sought damages for an alleged breach of the settlement. Her new lawsuit asked a court to declare the disputed terms unlawful and unenforceable; she did not seek money in that action.

Barnett based her challenge on California’s Stand Together Against Non-Disclosure Act. The law generally prohibits settlement language that prevents disclosure of factual information connected to a filed claim involving sexual assault, sexual harassment and certain forms of workplace harassment or discrimination. Her lawyers argued that the provisions went further still by constraining her ability to speak about sexual violence as a public issue. LaBeouf’s side disputed that characterization and maintained that Barnett had entered the agreement while represented by experienced counsel.

A judge did not have to resolve those competing arguments. The dismissal request says LaBeouf agreed to terminate the provisions, so the action had achieved its stated purpose. Barnett’s attorney Mathew Rosengart said the result allows her to discuss her experience, advocate for other women and support charitable causes. LaBeouf’s attorney Shawn Holley confirmed that nothing now prevents Barnett from speaking and said LaBeouf wished her well, while continuing to reject the claim that he had tried to silence her.

The distinction between resolution and adjudication matters. Calling the NDA void does not turn the allegations in the 2020 case into court findings, and dismissal of the new case does not vindicate the confidentiality terms Barnett challenged. It means the parties ended the speech dispute by removing the provisions rather than litigating their enforceability to a final decision. The financial and other terms of the 2025 settlement remain private.

For Barnett, the practical result is substantial even without a published opinion: she no longer has to weigh those settlement provisions before speaking about her own account or participating in survivor advocacy. For the entertainment industry, the case also illustrates why private settlements can keep generating public questions after the headline lawsuit ends. A settlement may close a courtroom fight, but language governing what an artist can later say can become a separate contest over voice, reputation and power.

The next chapter belongs to Barnett, not to speculation about what she may disclose. Her legal team has framed the outcome as protection for her ability to speak and support others; it has not announced a new interview, statement or advocacy campaign tied to the dismissal. Any future account should be evaluated on its own terms, with the same care this history requires: Barnett’s allegations must not be minimized, and they must not be described as findings a court never made.