zlacker

>>fnbr+(OP)
"It forbids them, for the rest of their lives, from criticizing their former employer. Even acknowledging that the NDA exists is a violation of it."

I find it hard to understand that in a country that tends to take freedom of expression so seriously (and I say this unironically, American democracy may have flaws but that is definitely a strength) it can be legal to silence someone for the rest of their life.

>>Al-Khw+W11
As others have mentioned, its likely many parts of this NDA are non-enforceable

Its quite common for companies to put tons of extremely restrictive terms in an NDA they can't actually legally enforce to scare off potential future ex-employees from creating a problem.

>>DaSHac+vh1
I wouldn't say that is "quite common". If you throw a bunch of unenforceable clauses into an NDA/non-compete/whatever, that increases the likelihood of the whole thing being thrown out, which is not a can of worms most corporations want to open. So it is actually toeing a delicate balance most of the time, not a "let's throw everything we can into this legal agreement and see what sticks".