>>12803077This is what people are missing.
If Jericho did something criminal the NDA is void and Tony Khan and everyone else involved in it become accessories to covering up a crime. There's literally nothing to stop Kylie or anyone else breaking such an NDA. You'd need to win in court though.
If Jericho didn't do anything illegal but did make Kylie uncomfortable (which could be legitimately uncomfortable behaviour or could be fucking nothing, because, speaking as someone with anxiety, if you have a mental health issue sometimes you're made uncomfortable by fucking nothing) then an NDA can hold up because it's "here's some money to not talk about some behaviour that upset you, this would be harmful to our reputation" which is valid for an NDA.
Therefore simple reasoning states- if Kylie doesn't break the NDA, it's more likely Jericho did nothing illegal, possibly inappropriate but otherwise not illegal. Possible she just figures she couldn't win in court so doesn't want to lose her payoff, but court of law > court of public opinion, if you can't win the former you don't get to bias the latter to ruin someone without legal proof.
NDAs are increasingly being used in the court of public opinion to create the implications of wrongdoing. Someone who knows of the NDA but has not been formally told of it by any party (plenty easy ways to get around this) who puts about the existence of an NDA, keeps hush hush about the contents and lets the rumour mill get going along with "absence of evidence of wrongdoing doesn't mean evidence of absence of wrongdoing, WE MIGHT NEVER KNOW BUT SOMETHING HAPPENED". Thus a particularly clever malicious person can actually weaponsise the existence of an NDA to do more damage than the contents of the NDA would ever do- corporations often do this to turn things back round on employees who sign NDAs to take a payoff for non-criminal (or hard to prove) mistreatment, revenge discreditation.
I'm not even saying Jericho's innocent btw
