Deel Employee Spying Affidavit: A Real-Life Thriller

Rippling Reveals Affidavit in Deel Espionage Case

Rippling made public on Wednesday the sworn statement of its employee who alleges they were engaged in covert activities on behalf of Deel, a direct competitor in the HR technology sector.

The details outlined in the affidavit, alongside Rippling’s recently filed lawsuit against Deel, resemble a plot from a corporate espionage thriller, featuring elements of surveillance and deliberate data compromise.

A Narrative Unfolds

This situation represents the newest development in an ongoing dispute between the two companies. TechCrunch has summarized the most dramatic aspects of the testimony presented, but it’s important to note this represents Rippling’s perspective, actively promoted through their public relations efforts and CEO Parker Conrad’s statements on social media.

As a reminder, Rippling, a comprehensive workforce management solution, initiated legal action against Deel on March 17th, claiming acts of corporate espionage. The lawsuit alleges violations of the RICO act – typically employed in prosecuting organized crime – alongside accusations of trade secret theft and unfair business practices.

Initially, the identity of the Rippling employee involved was withheld. However, this changed with Wednesday’s release of the affidavit, which was signed on April 1st.

Allegations Detailed in the Affidavit

The affidavit details a scheme where a Rippling employee was allegedly recruited by Deel to gather confidential information. This included accessing internal documents and systems.

Deel is accused of orchestrating a deliberate effort to undermine Rippling’s competitive advantage through illicit means.

The account further describes a scenario involving a “sting operation” designed to expose the alleged espionage, culminating in the intentional destruction of a mobile phone containing sensitive data.

Rippling contends that Deel’s actions constitute a serious breach of trust and a blatant disregard for legal and ethical boundaries.

The lawsuit seeks significant damages and an injunction to prevent Deel from continuing these alleged practices.

Corporate Espionage Allegations

As detailed in a sworn statement, Keith O’Brien began his employment with Rippling in July 2023. His role was within the global payroll and compliance division, based in the company’s Dublin office.

Early in 2024, O’Brien applied for a position at Deel but was not selected. However, he reports establishing contact with Deel’s founder through LinkedIn following the interview process.

Subsequently, the employee initiated a payroll consulting venture and proposed a working relationship with Deel. He ultimately informed them of his intention to leave Rippling to dedicate himself fully to this new business.

According to O’Brien’s testimony, Alex Bouaziz, Deel’s CEO, and Philippe Bouaziz, Deel’s CFO and Alex’s father, proposed an alternative course of action. They allegedly suggested that O’Brien act as an informant regarding Rippling’s activities.

O’Brien testified that a monthly payment of €5,000 was offered, with the initial installment being US$6,000. Later payments were to be conducted using cryptocurrency.

The testimony indicates that O’Brien accessed Rippling’s internal systems, including Slack and Google Drive, to gather information. This data was then communicated to his Deel contacts via the Telecom messaging application.

He reportedly provided details concerning sales prospects, upcoming product developments, client accounts, and key personnel at Rippling. Information regarding countries subject to sanctions was also allegedly disclosed, alongside other requested data, as O’Brien testified.

The legal complaint asserts that this intelligence gathering continued for a period of four months. It further claims that, on a single day, O’Brien shared data pertaining to hundreds of companies who had requested a Rippling demonstration.

This included hundreds of notes compiled by the sales team regarding potential clients, as well as specifics about Deel’s existing customers with whom Rippling was actively engaged, according to the lawsuit.

A Deceptive Scheme Unveiled

O’Brien believed he was meticulously erasing evidence; however, his testimony reveals that certain screen recordings captured with his phone were unknowingly backed up to his iCloud account.

According to Rippling’s legal action, the company intentionally devised a plan to expose the alleged spy. This involved dispatching a formal legal notice to Deel’s executive team. The communication asserted that Rippling personnel were discussing sensitive information, potentially damaging to Deel, within a Slack channel designated “d-defectors.” The lawsuit clarifies that this channel was fabricated as part of the deception.

O’Brien’s account indicates he received instructions to investigate the “d-defectors” channel, but was promptly advised against continuing the search, with a warning that it might be a deliberate trap.

(The nature of the relationship between these firms is highlighted by Rippling’s counsel’s willingness to send such a letter, even as a tactic, and the fact that it was initially accepted as genuine.)

Nevertheless, O’Brien’s search of the Slack channel apparently led to his discovery. Upon arriving at the office on March 14th, he was confronted by legal representation and presented with a court order authorizing a search of his electronic devices.

He testified to surrendering his laptop but concealing his phone, retreating to the office restroom, and performing a factory reset on the device, simulating its disposal by flushing it.

Subsequently, he testified that, acting on guidance from individuals he believed were affiliated with Deel, he destroyed his previous phone with an axe and disposed of it in the plumbing at his mother-in-law’s residence.

The lawyer attempted to prevent O’Brien from departing the office, cautioning him about potential testimony requirements, but O’Brien left regardless, as detailed in both the lawsuit and accounts from the employee.

Following this, O’Brien, experiencing heightened anxiety, engaged in immediate communication with Deel’s CEO and others he perceived as Deel’s legal counsel, as stated in the affidavit. One suggestion even involved relocating O’Brien and his family to Dubai, citing favorable extradition policies.

Throughout these exchanges, he received counsel to provide statements to authorities alleging that Rippling was involved in facilitating Russian payments and that he was facing harassment as a potential whistleblower.

O’Brien admitted to initially considering this course of action, but later testified: “I understood this to be untrue.”

He ultimately retained independent legal representation and, driven by increasing distress and illness, chose to cooperate fully with authorities and “present the facts,” according to the affidavit.

Deel has not yet responded to requests for comment, nor has its CEO addressed the matter on X. However, in response to the initial complaint filed last week, Deel communicated to TechCrunch through a spokesperson:

“Following accusations against Rippling for allegedly violating sanctions regulations in Russia and disseminating false information about Deel, Rippling is attempting to redirect attention with these exaggerated claims. We vehemently deny any legal misconduct and anticipate presenting our counterclaims.”

Rippling’s legal counsel, however, asserts they possess conclusive evidence.

“The evidence in this case is irrefutable. High-ranking officials within Deel’s leadership are implicated in a blatant corporate espionage operation, and they will face the consequences,” stated Alex Spiro, Rippling’s legal counsel, to TechCrunch.

Further support for Rippling is emerging, with others expressing approval. Eynat Guez, CEO of Papaya Global, a competitor to Deel, posted on Twitter, “To our knowledge, this is not an isolated incident. Thank you @parkerconrad for addressing this practice.”

Notably, Rippling’s past actions toward Deel have occasionally drawn criticism. Last year, Rippling launched a marketing campaign titled “Snake Game” targeting its competitor, but the campaign was widely criticized online.

The complete affidavit can be found here.

Note: This article has been updated to reflect the correct filing date of Rippling’s lawsuit, which was March 17.