HR technology firm Deel has filed an amended complaint in its ongoing legal dispute with main competitor Rippling, elevating allegations of corporate espionage amid an escalating feud between the two companies.
This latest filing provides fresh details regarding Deel’s accusations. Specifically, Deel claims a Rippling employee, whose job title involves “Competitive Intelligence,” allegedly impersonated a legitimate Deel customer for half a year. This purported maneuver allowed him unauthorized access into Deel’s proprietary platforms, enabling him to closely examine, document, and appropriate sensitive information regarding Deel’s global products and business operations for Rippling’s benefit.
Rippling first sued Deel back in March following the revelation of a Rippling employee who testified in an Irish court that he was covertly providing confidential company data to Deel. Rippling accused Deel of misappropriating trade secrets, unfair competition, tortious interference, and various other illegal practices tied to corporate espionage allegations.
Deel countered Rippling’s suit shortly after, not only seeking dismissal on technical grounds but also accusing Rippling of similar covert activities. The new filing takes aim at Rippling’s CEO Parker Conrad personally, recounting his earlier controversial tenure at Zenefits, hinting that Conrad’s animosity towards Zenefits’ backer Andreessen Horowitz—an investor of Deel—motivated his actions. Deel argues that Rippling’s recent moves stem from Conrad’s unresolved resentment, asserting he sought “revenge” against Andreessen Horowitz and anyone affiliated, including Deel, in which the venture capital firm maintains a significant stake.
Additionally, Deel alleges that Rippling spread defamatory claims through media outlets and regulators about Deel’s business practices—claims Deel describes as false and intentionally misleading. Reference was provided to a 2023 incident wherein U.S. Senator Adam Schiff had requested an inquiry into Deel’s worker classification practices after media coverage raised concerns. Deel maintains it cleared up the issue without repercussions after discussions with Senator Schiff’s office.
Deel’s amended complaint also disclosed rare details about its current financial standing, asserting profitability spanning several years and annual revenues surpassing $1 billion.
Rippling responded promptly through a spokesperson, remarking it would meticulously review the specifics outlined in Deel’s accusations. The company reiterated its resolve to uphold ethical standards and comply fully with established internal guidelines. Rippling also argued that Deel’s revised complaint scaled back certain claims made previously, particularly those involving alleged access to Deel’s board-level information.
Critically, the rival espionage allegations differ in nature. Rippling accuses Deel of overtly recruiting and rewarding an insider employee, who provided internal trade secrets from Rippling’s own network. Conversely, Deel accuses Rippling of gaining insight into its offerings and operational framework through unauthorized customer impersonation and evaluating its available products.
Historically, competitors often scrutinize each other’s publicly accessible products to refine competitive strategies. Nonetheless, Deel’s legal arguments challenge whether this traditional practice crosses legal boundaries in Rippling’s reported approach.
Meanwhile, Rippling’s original espionage accusations have drawn significant attention due to their sensational nature, becoming part of industry folklore involving entrapment and deception. These episodes have even inspired parody advertising campaigns from other tech startups, reflecting the saga’s broader cultural resonance within Silicon Valley.
Ultimately, a court decision will clarify the acceptable parameters in the controversial space where business intelligence gathering intersects with corporate espionage.
