This obsession with NDA's is silly tbh. Most NDA's have a lot of unenforceable stuff in them.

For example, here (Pennsylvania, U.S) the information Taylor shared would be protected despite the NDA. If Platinum wanted to sue or countersue they'd probably have an easier time with a slander case. She lives in the U.K of course and they have weaker protections there.

I've signed probably half a dozen NDAs/non-compete agreements and probably only 10% of the stuff that was in them are enforceable (mostly if I shared company code with another company really.)

 Hale has a long long long resume and has a reputation of being professional. Liked her work a long time. Not a fan of her just her work. But she has shown many times she is professional. Hellena has proven with this stunt the total opposite. Both are under an NDA and one chose to break it out of being petty.

I can't speak to what kind of NDA they have signed, possibly pertaining to Japanese laws.
But if there was no risk behind revealing the information for Taylor, there presumably shouldn't be for PG either if they did the same thinga as her and just went public with it. Yet they seem to have chosen to go a roundabout way to get that information out there instead. Which is going to reach a lot fewer eyes than if they made a public statement. So it seems like there is legal reason for them not to do that.

That has nothing to do with Hale character as a person.  How many times you see popular people who appear to present a certain public appearance but internally are a complete mess.  My point is that you nor I personally have no clue who these people are.  Everyone shows a side to themselves to public and private people.  Hell people can be totally different from one subject to another depending on what it is.

The way I see it, I have heard nothing concerning either one of these 2 people and to be honest you are still making assumptions on incomplete info.  Just because bloomberg published a report from anonymous sources on a document no one can verify which could actually be doctored really is not different jumping to conclusions on someone making statements without any proof.  There is no proof here that either party is lying at this stage.  

In the end, since you never worked with either of these 2 people you have no clue who is more professional.  Hale could be a total ass and you may never hear about it because no one needed to talk about it.  

From my point of view, Hellena made a claim, now some info came out that she can either refute or drop or clarify.  Its in her ball court but nothing right now is still set unless we find ourselves in a court situation then it would all come out.

That is not how that works.  Usually an NDA prevent you from conditions both parties agree on but companies are held to a higher standard when releasing personal information from non public figures. In other words, what P did could be against the law in a lot of countries while breaking and NDA is just something enforceable if the company want to take you to court and you have to pay damages specified in the NDA for the conduct.  The 2 situations are not the same.  I have also signed multiple NDAs for contracts.  If anything in the NDA goes against, local, state or federal statues then its pretty much null.

Right, but I'm still not clear on the answer for what I'm wondering here. In your response we're assuming that both parties took actions that could lead to court proceedings. And I'm not surprised companies are held to a higher stadard than individuals. But I was trying to rule out the idea that there may be no legal risk to Hellena Taylor by looking at how Platinum went about it, and posting this question: If what she did happens to be non-enforcable, with no risk of going to court over the NDA breach even if PG wanted to persue it, would a Platinum employee making the same type of video as her not be treated the same way?

For example, the PG translator for the negotiations makes a video and tells people what she was actually offered.

Because in that case it sounds as if the only difference is whether or not Hellena was contracted as an employee of the company at the time she made the statement?

Right, but I'm still not clear on the answer for what I'm wondering here. In your response we're assuming that both parties took actions that could lead to court proceedings. And I'm not surprised companies are held to a higher stadard than individuals. But I was trying to rule out the idea that there may be no legal risk to Hellena Taylor by looking at how Platinum went about it, and posting this question: If what she did happens to be non-enforcable, with no risk of going to court over the NDA breach even if PG wanted to persue it, would a Platinum employee making the same type of video as her not also be off the hook?

For example, the PG translator for the negotiations makes a video and tells people what she was actually offered.

Because in that case it sounds as if the difference is whether or not Hellena was contracted as an employee of the company at the time she made the statement?

I would say that saying how much you were offered would be considered a very minor offense compared with the possibility of company intentionally leaking a full contract to jornal with intention of that being used to defend itself and take out credibility of the other party even more because they are using a roundabout way, so I would say it could be included intent to break the law.

Right, but I'm still not clear on the answer for what I'm wondering here. In your response we're assuming that both parties took actions that could lead to court proceedings. And I'm not surprised companies are held to a higher stadard than individuals. But I was trying to rule out the idea that there may be no legal risk to Hellena Taylor by looking at how Platinum went about it, and posting this question: If what she did happens to be non-enforcable, with no risk of going to court over the NDA breach even if PG wanted to persue it, would a Platinum employee making the same type of video as her not be treated the same way?

For example, the PG translator for the negotiations makes a video and tells people what she was actually offered.

Because in that case it sounds as if the only difference is whether or not Hellena was contracted as an employee of the company at the time she made the statement?

In most jurisdictions sharing other people's offers is more harshly punished than sharing one's own (which in some jurisdictions, but not the U.K from what I gather) is a full legal right which an NDA can't enforceably infringe. 

Things become more complicated though if they are protecting themselves or the company's image from a lie. I doubt this would be a simple case, but Platinum probably has a higher risk in the situation.

Right but I'm wondering this under the pretence that there's no risk to Hellena, not just that her offense is minor in comparison. If there's no risk to her, would there be no risk to that PG employee?

And I don't know if this information was on any contract, because they seemingly never left the negotiation stages. The only contract in question may be the NDA, which I don't think would include the details of their conversation.

And of course, this PG emplyee would not reveal if they were instructed to do so, but just felt that they could not sit in silence and watch as the company they love is smeared with lies, or something to that effect.