The legal confrontation between HR technology firms Deel and Rippling has intensified as Deel has filed a motion in an Irish court demanding that Rippling disclose unredacted versions of agreements made with Keith O’Brien, a former Rippling employee who admitted to espionage activities on behalf of Deel.
In March 2025, Rippling initiated a lawsuit against Deel, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, and unfair competition, primarily based on claims that O’Brien, while employed at Rippling, provided confidential information to Deel. O’Brien’s admission in an Irish court, as detailed in an affidavit released by Rippling, has been central to these allegations.
Deel has countered these claims by filing a motion that includes a series of letters requesting the Irish court to compel Rippling to produce unredacted versions of witness affidavits, notably those of O’Brien. Deel’s motion highlights testimony from Vanessa Wu, Rippling’s former general counsel, who stated that Rippling terminated O’Brien and provided him with a termination fee in exchange for signing an agreement not to pursue legal action against the company. Wu further testified that Rippling entered into a subsequent agreement with O’Brien, agreeing to cover his legal expenses and reasonable out-of-pocket costs related to his cooperation in the ongoing proceedings.
Deel’s legal team argues that it is highly unusual for an employee dismissed for cause to receive financial compensation and support from their former employer, especially when that individual is serving as a key witness in litigation against a competitor. By obtaining these unredacted agreements, Deel aims to scrutinize the nature of Rippling’s relationship with O’Brien and assess the potential impact on the credibility of his testimony.
This development adds another layer to the complex legal battle between the two companies, both valued at over $10 billion and competing fiercely in the HR technology sector. The outcome of this dispute could have significant implications for industry practices related to employee conduct, confidentiality agreements, and competitive intelligence.
As the court considers Deel’s request, the industry watches closely, anticipating further revelations that may emerge from the disclosure of these agreements and their potential influence on the ongoing litigation.
