Our Terms & Conditions | Our Privacy Policy
A legal dispute between Israeli fintech company Deel and its U.S. competitor Rippling has escalated into allegations of corporate espionage, intimidation, defamation and disinformation. What began as a straightforward commercial spying case has evolved into a complex saga centered around Keith O’Brien—an employee who may have secretly worked for both companies.
According to documents obtained by Ynet, including correspondence between the sides’ legal teams, Deel claims Rippling paid O’Brien—the same person Rippling accuses of spying on it. Deel says details of the payment agreements were redacted from a court affidavit.
“We repeat our request for unredacted copies of both agreements,” one letter read. “Entire exhibits were removed in some cases, while others contain substantial redactions.” Rippling’s attorneys have rejected the request.
‘House of cards starting to collapse’
In March, Rippling filed a lawsuit against Deel in Ireland, alleging it paid O’Brien for corporate espionage. O’Brien later confirmed he received $6,000 per month from Deel in exchange for information.
Deel has since countersued in Delaware, claiming O’Brien was pressured and intimidated by Rippling into falsely testifying. A Deel spokesperson told Ynet, “Rippling’s legal house of cards is starting to collapse.”
Rippling has recently escalated the matter further, potentially pushing it into criminal territory. According to a report by Axios, which cites internal Rippling documents, another payroll platform—Globalization Partners—also identified signs of corporate spying.
Both companies reportedly alerted U.S. federal authorities. While Rippling claims a criminal investigation has been launched, no official confirmation has been published.
Deel was valued at $12 billion following a funding round in May 2022. Last week, Rippling raised $450 million at a $16.8 billion valuation. Globalization Partners, a smaller competitor in the same space, raised $200 million in 2022 at a $4.2 billion valuation.
Accusations of smears and manipulation
O’Brien’s payments from Rippling came to light by chance, through an affidavit submitted by the company’s own general counsel, Vanessa Wu. She revealed that Rippling had reached two agreements with O’Brien—one for a settlement payment and another covering all his legal and other expenses. These agreements were only partially submitted to the court and Deel is now seeking their full disclosure, arguing they cast doubt on the credibility of O’Brien’s testimony.
Deel further alleges that Rippling infiltrated its workforce with a planted mole and attempted to obtain confidential information from other employees. According to Deel, Rippling has waged a sustained smear campaign, engaged in unfair competition and disrupted its operations. The company claims this is part of a broader pattern of aggressive and inappropriate behavior by Rippling, including baseless regulatory complaints and the planting of insiders.
Deel also accuses Rippling of hiring PR consultants to spread negative stories and disinformation, including referring to Deel’s services as “snake oil”—a term historically used for fraudulent remedies. “Enough is enough,” Deel wrote in its court filing. “Deel will no longer tolerate Rippling’s attacks on competitors and former employees.”
The timing of the dispute is particularly sensitive for Deel, which reports annual revenues of $800 million and has been preparing to go public on the Nasdaq. A scandal involving corporate espionage—especially if criminal charges are filed—could scare off investors. This raises questions about whether Rippling’s lawsuit was strategically timed.
In a statement, Deel said: “Rippling’s allegations focus on O’Brien—an individual who received payments from them. Rippling is withholding the agreements it signed with him, and has redacted significant portions of its court submissions.
“We’re asking the Irish court to compel the release of the complete, unredacted documentation, which will reveal exactly how much Rippling paid for O’Brien’s testimony. Days after their general counsel resigned, Rippling filed a motion to amend their case. We’ve since filed our own suit.”
Rippling has not responded to Ynet’s request for comment.
Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.
Aggregated From –
Comments are closed.