Nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) have become increasingly common among affluent households as a means to protect privacy and safeguard sensitive information. Once primarily used by corporations to guard proprietary information, NDAs are now standard practice for household employees, contractors, and service providers working for wealthy clients.
A landscape designer who recently interviewed for a position with a prominent client described receiving a contract imposing strict confidentiality obligations not only on herself but also on her employees, subcontractors, nursery suppliers, and crew members. The agreement included unusual restrictions, such as a prohibition on visitors wearing recording devices like Google Glass.
Legal experts note that the demand for NDAs in domestic settings has surged significantly over the past decade. Joseph Maya, a managing partner at the Connecticut law firm Maya Murphy, highlighted that inquiries about NDAs have increased “a hundredfold” during the last five to ten years. Maya attributes this trend to the growing wealth of individuals and the concomitant accumulation of valuables, expansive art collections, and other assets at risk of exposure.
In addition to household staff such as butlers, tutors, and private chefs, professionals including architects, interior designers, computer technicians, personal assistants, and fitness trainers have reported being required to sign NDAs before engaging with clients in the ultrarich category. Luke Yates, an integrations engineer at Seaside Staffing, described this new “culture of hyper paranoia” as reflecting legitimate concerns about privacy related to financial details, medical information, security measures, and movements.
Elizabeth Pipkin, an attorney at the Silicon Valley firm McManis Faulkner, explained that NDAs serve to protect wealthy individuals from extortion attempts, lawsuits without merit, and other legal risks. She noted that substantial household staffs spread across multiple residences demand confidentiality similar to corporate entities.
Some scholars view the rising use of NDAs as symptomatic of broader social challenges concerning privacy. Sarah Igo, a history professor at Vanderbilt University and author of a social history of American privacy, suggested that NDAs represent attempts to cope with the modern prevalence of information leaks and the widespread availability of technology that facilitates disclosure of private matters.
While NDAs have long been a fixture in the technology sector, requiring everyone entering company premises to sign confidentiality agreements, the practice has expanded to government and judicial settings. Since 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court has used NDAs to restrict employees such as clerks from discussing internal proceedings. Similarly, the Trump administration proposed broad use of confidentiality agreements across federal employees.
However, legal professionals caution that not all provisions in NDAs are enforceable. Luke Yates stated that the contracts can include terms employers desire, but courts may not uphold every clause. Laws exist to protect employees’ rights to report illegal activities, cooperate with investigations, and discuss workplace conditions with certain entities, limiting the reach of NDAs.
Despite these safeguards, enforcement remains a challenge. Maya observed a general decline in discretion among individuals who might prioritize immediate gain over confidentiality. The widespread adoption of NDAs highlights ongoing tensions between the desire for privacy among the wealthy and the realities of human behavior and legal boundaries.