HR-10389-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by James Comer (R-KY)
What it does
The bill would make nondisclosure clauses unenforceable to the extent they stop a victim of sexual abuse (including grooming of a minor) from disclosing the abuse or related facts, and would apply to contracts signed before, on, or after enactment. Settlement amounts and payment terms could still be kept confidential, and the bill would override state laws that allow enforcement of the voided clauses while letting states provide greater protection. It would also require fiduciaries (such as guardians, trustees, officers, and employees) with reasonable cause to believe the person they serve is engaged in grooming behavior to report it to law enforcement under Attorney General rules, with a federal private right of action and state attorney general suits if the person is later convicted.
Who benefits
Survivors of sexual abuse and grooming who signed settlement or employment agreements with confidentiality terms and wish to speak publicly. Other people who share facts in support of a survivor's right to disclose. Minors who may be protected if fiduciaries report suspected grooming earlier. Journalists, advocacy groups, and the public, who may gain access to information previously sealed by private agreements. Victims of convicted offenders, who would gain a federal damages claim against a fiduciary who failed to report.
Who is hurt
Alleged perpetrators and organizations (employers, institutions, and companies) that relied on existing confidentiality agreements and now lose enforceability of those clauses, including for contracts already signed. Fiduciaries such as officers, directors, employees, trustees, and guardians, who would face new reporting duties and potential civil liability and legal costs. Defendants in cases where the clause covers allegations, since the definition of sexual abuse includes conduct that merely "allegedly" occurred, which could include unproven or false claims. State governments whose contract-enforcement laws would be partly preempted, and courts that may handle new litigation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that confidentiality clauses have let abusers and institutions silence victims and conceal repeat offenders, as seen in high-profile cases where secrecy agreements shielded perpetrators for years. They contend the bill is narrowly drawn, because it leaves settlement amounts confidential and voids clauses only to the extent they block disclosure by victims. They also argue the fiduciary reporting duty, limited to cases ending in a conviction, closes a gap by giving people in positions of trust a clear obligation to alert authorities to grooming.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that retroactively voiding existing contracts undermines settled expectations and may discourage future settlements, since defendants would lose the assurance of confidentiality that often makes settlement attractive. They contend the definition of sexual abuse, which includes "alleged" conduct and a broad "grooming" standard based on intent, could sweep in unproven accusations and expose people to public disclosure without any adjudication. They also argue the fiduciary liability, which reaches employees and agents, creates vague duties and litigation risk, and that federal preemption intrudes on state contract law.
Constitutional context
Congress would rely on the Commerce Clause (the definition ties grooming to conduct "in or affecting interstate commerce"), and the retroactive voiding of existing private contracts raises Contracts Clause-style and Fifth Amendment Due Process questions; the Contracts Clause itself restricts states, not Congress, so the challenge would proceed under due process, as in Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. R.A. Gray & Co. (1984), which upheld retroactive economic legislation under rational-basis review. The state attorney general provisions and preemption of state enforcement law also implicate federalism limits, and the reporting duty may draw First and Fifth Amendment arguments.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority over private nondisclosure agreements, the Attorney General would gain rulemaking power over the reporting duty and deadlines, and federal courts would adjudicate private and state suits; judicial review and the statutory limits on liability (a conviction requirement, 10-year limitations period) act as checks.
Historical precedent
Congress previously limited enforcement of certain secrecy agreements in the Speak Out Act (2022), which restricted pre-dispute nondisclosure clauses in sexual harassment and assault cases, and the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (2022) similarly limited contract terms in this area.