The courtroom feud between HR tech rivals Deel and Rippling is escalating yet again—this time in Ireland, where Deel has asked the court to force Rippling to hand over unredacted legal documents related to explosive spying allegations.
In a series of letters filed Monday, Deel demanded access to full, unedited versions of affidavits submitted in the case, including the now-infamous one by former Rippling employee Keith O’Brien. In what has become a high-stakes, drama-filled legal saga, O’Brien admitted in Irish court filings that he spied on Rippling—while working undercover for Deel.
The shocking confession formed the backbone of Rippling’s March lawsuit, which accuses Deel of misappropriating trade secrets, interfering with business relationships, and engaging in unfair competition. Deel, however, has fired back with a countersuit of its own, seeking dismissal on jurisdictional grounds and levying accusations that Rippling also tried to spy on Deel.
Deel Questions Payments to Alleged Spy
Deel’s latest court filings focus heavily on the credibility and financial arrangements surrounding O’Brien’s testimony. In particular, Deel is zeroing in on a witness affidavit from Vanessa Wu, Rippling’s former general counsel, who described the events leading up to and following O’Brien’s termination.
According to Wu’s affidavit, Rippling fired O’Brien but then paid him a termination fee to avoid a lawsuit—and later signed a second agreement to cover his legal and out-of-pocket expenses related to his cooperation in the case. Deel argues this is highly irregular, claiming it’s unusual for a company to fire someone for cause, only to then place them back on the payroll as a paid witness.
Deel is now asking the Irish court to compel Rippling to release unredacted versions of both agreements with O’Brien. The company is framing the move as a push for transparency and calling attention to what it sees as questionable tactics by Rippling.
Both companies continue to deny any wrongdoing and insist the other is to blame. With allegations of corporate espionage, secret agreements, and strategic legal maneuvers on both sides, the case is rapidly turning into one of the tech industry’s most sensational HR battles.
Whether the court agrees to make the full agreements and testimony public remains to be seen—but if it does, more twists in this corporate showdown are almost certainly on the way.
