Tech entrepreneur Bryan Johnson, known for his extreme anti-ageing regimen and the Netflix documentary 'Don’t Die: The Man Who Wants to Live Forever', has been accused of using non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to prevent employees at his startup, Blueprint, from speaking out about his controversial behaviour.

A report by The New York Times (NYT) claims that Johnson frequently walked around his office wearing 'little or no clothing' and engaged in discussions about 'sexual activities, including erections', in front of employees. The report also states that employees, contractors, and even his sexual partners were pressured into signing NDAs that restricted them from speaking about their experiences.

Opt-in agreements and employee restrictions

According to The New York Times, the employment agreement at Blueprint was 20 pages long and contained strict confidentiality clauses. Employees were required to keep private “any nonpublic information regarding Bryan’s home, office, personal effects, any rented or owned spaces, any vehicles, planes, automobiles, boats, or other methods of transportation that are not publicly accessible.”

Additionally, the NDAs mandated that employees attest to being comfortable with Johnson wearing “little and sometimes no clothing/no underwear” and with discussions of “sexual activities, including erections.” The agreement also required employees to confirm that such behaviour was not “unwelcome, offensive, humiliating, hostile, triggering, unprofessional, or abusive.”

Due to these agreements, the report alleges that employees felt unable to complain about Johnson’s conduct.

Johnson’s lifestyle and controversial past

Johnson made millions by selling his payments company, Braintree, to PayPal in 2013. Since then, he has invested heavily in anti-ageing experiments, including taking 54 daily supplements, undergoing shock therapy, and receiving blood transfusions from his son.

The NYT report also alleges that after selling Braintree, Johnson divorced his wife, hired prostitutes, and experimented with psychedelic drugs such as LSD, Ibogaine, and DMT.

Johnson’s response to the allegations

Following the publication of the New York Times report, Johnson dismissed the allegations, calling the article a failed attempt to discredit him.

“What was meant to be a takedown ended up reading like a profile piece,” he wrote on X.

“They spent a year digging, talked to 30 people, including former fired employees, propped up my ex as their star witness (who tried to extract $9 million from me and failed), and still came up empty. It was only by contorting and twisting facts to fit a narrative that they barely had enough to publish.”

Regarding the opt-in agreement at Blueprint, Johnson defended it, stating: “I post nudes on social media. I track my nighttime erections. My team openly discusses my semen health. We make dank memes. Rather than letting people walk in blind, we disclose this upfront, in writing, so there are no surprises.”

“This isn’t coercion; it’s transparency. This practice is fair to all concerned and is in everyone’s best interest. If someone doesn’t align with our culture, they are free to work elsewhere. No one is forced to sign anything. The opt-in agreement exists to ensure that people understand and consent to the environment. It eliminates ambiguity and prevents misunderstandings.”

NDAs and confidentiality agreements

Johnson also defended the use of confidentiality agreements, calling them “standard and normal.” He argued that such agreements are necessary to protect his privacy and ensure clear boundaries.

“I would be surprised if you didn’t sign one as a condition of employment at The New York Times,” he said.

“On a personal level, my life is under constant scrutiny. These agreements try to create clear boundaries and expectations so that trust isn’t left to chance.”

He further stated, “Over time, our agreements have evolved, just like everything else I iterate and improve upon. The goal is precision. Clarity eliminates confusion. People know where they stand, and that’s a win for everyone.”

The New York Times report has sparked debates about workplace ethics, personal privacy, and the extent to which a company can impose behavioural expectations on its employees. While some critics have condemned Johnson’s actions as inappropriate and exploitative, others argue that his disclosures were transparent and that employees had the option to leave if they were uncomfortable.