By Peter Blumberg Deel Inc. was hit with new setbacks in Rippling Inc.’s corporate espionage litigation against the HR startup.

A federal judge on Friday rejected Deel’s bid to strike testimony by a central witness, refused to reopen his earlier decision to let Rippling’s claims proceed and ordered Deel’s most serious counterclaims against its rival into arbitration. The judge dismissed several other claims by Deel that Rippling engaged in false advertising and allowed some to move forward.

“Deel’s efforts to avoid facing justice continue to collapse,” Rippling said in a statement. Deel representatives didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

The multibillion-dollar startups, both with heavy venture capital backing, have been embroiled in a legal battle for more than a year. Rippling first sued Deel in March 2025 over claims that Deel was paying a Rippling employee, Keith O’Brien, to secretly gather confidential information on his employer. Deel has denied those claims.

San Francisco-based Deel had asked the judge in July to disallow testimony by O’Brien after he declined to answer more than 100 questions and requests for information from Deel, invoking his right against self-incrimination under the US Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, among other objections.

US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco ruled that the request was improper because Deel “actively avoided efforts” to resolve disputes over the witness testimony and refused to accept assurances from a lawyer for O’Brien that he would not invoke the Fifth Amendment. A lawyer who has represented O’Brien didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Deel also urged Breyer to reconsider in part his February ruling allowing Rippling to advance with claims that Deel had violated federal racketeering and trade secret laws. Deel had argued that Rippling’s allegations have no legitimate basis.

The judge declined to “reopen issues already settled” in his prior orders. Breyer granted a request by Rippling to move racketeering claims filed against it by Deel into closed-door arbitration.

Among other claims, Deel had alleged that Rippling pressured an employee to tell the court a distorted and “implausible” story about Deel cultivating him as a spy to steal trade secrets, and that the employee was actually a whistleblower who had raised concerns about Rippling’s accounting and business practices. Rippling has denied the claims.

Among other claims, Deel had alleged that Rippling pressured an employee to tell the court a distorted and “implausible” story about Deel cultivating him as a spy to steal trade secrets, and that the employee was actually a whistleblower who had raised concerns about Rippling’s accounting and business practices. Rippling has denied the claims.

Friday’s order by the judge dismissed Deel’s cybersquatting and trademark claims over Rippling’s alleged use of a deal.com URL to redirect traffic to its own website. Without addressing the merits, Breyer allowed Deel to move forward with some of its 32 claims under the federal Lanham Act that Rippling made false or misleading statements to clients. Breyer dismissed other Lanham Act claims.

The judge said Deel can revise and refile various dismissed claims. The case is People Center Inc. v. Deel Inc., 3:25-cv-02576, US District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).