The interesting thing about this specific incident is that the son of the victim chose to not pursue any claim against AirBnb, so as to be free to talk about the incident.
This is why the article exists.
IMHO, clauses where a party forbids the other party to talk about the deal, should be made illegal, because as it is, companies with deep pockets can totally control the story.
I agree with you in principle, but I believe these agreements exist so that you can't take a $10m payout (and drop the legal case with a no-fault agreement), and then turn around and tell the media that "I was paid $10m, but they TOTALLY were at fault". It'd come across as disingenuous all around (company & victim).
To make it go away. It happens all the time--generally when something is settled, it has a "no admission of guilt" statement attached somewhere. Both sides agree not to talk about it, and that ends that. It's useful in a case where it'd be difficult to prove conclusively one way or another, and it could hurt a company to have the publicity. It's probably cheaper for a company to pay $10m and make it go away than to fight a year-long legal battle, even if they eventually win, since there are bound to be stories linking them to something bad.
This is red herring. If the agreement says you can't talk about the deal, you cannot say "I was paid $10m". Period. The "It was TOTALLY their fault" affix is irrelevant.
Of course, people know you were paid $10m; it's not the sort of thing you can perfectly hide.
This is why the article exists.
IMHO, clauses where a party forbids the other party to talk about the deal, should be made illegal, because as it is, companies with deep pockets can totally control the story.