The ongoing public dispute between HR and payroll services rivals, Deel and Rippling, has taken a new turn, with Deel filing a countersuit against Rippling in response to the latter’s allegations of corporate espionage.

To recap, Rippling had publicly announced on March 17 that it was suing Deel over alleged corporate espionage, with accusations ranging from violation of the RICO racketeering act to misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition. Deel has denied all wrongdoing, and is now slamming the lawsuit as part of a “campaign to try to impugn Deel’s reputation.”

The original lawsuit included an affidavit from the alleged spy that reads like a movie script. Deel had previously denied all allegations of wrongdoing, and is now taking a more aggressive stance.

In a recent blog post, Deel announced that it has filed a civil suit against Rippling in the Superior Court in Delaware. The complaint, dated April 24 and reviewed by TechCrunch, portrays Rippling CEO Parker Conrad in an unflattering light, describing him as “haunted by his previous failures, and now fueled by suffocating jealousy at his inability to fairly compete with Deel in the marketplace.”

Deel’s complaint also alleges that Rippling was not remitting its customers’ payroll tax and social benefits dollars to local taxation authorities, but rather “categorizing and reporting these funds as its own earnings.” Furthermore, Deel claims that Rippling “steals these funds from its clients, but also from its own employees by using a similar scheme.”

In response, Conrad took to social media to post that Deel does not dispute the central allegation that its CEO, Alex Bouaziz, personally recruited a spy to steal Rippling’s trade secrets and personally directed the theft. However, Deel’s countersuit tells a different story, with the company making counter-accusations against Rippling.

Specifically, Deel has filed three motions addressing Rippling’s March lawsuit, including a motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), and an anti-SLAPP motion to protect its protected conduct.

• A motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of Ireland, arguing that the case should be resolved where “Rippling previously initiated litigation” against Keith O’Brien, the alleged spy.
• A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), citing “Rippling’s failure to state a viable claim against Deel.”
• An anti-SLAPP motion to stem Rippling’s attempt, through litigation, to infringe on Deel’s protected conduct.

Deel’s complaint also alleges that Rippling solicited Deel employees to pass on confidential commercially sensitive information about Deel, and that Rippling placed its own “insider at Deel, essentially allowing it to eavesdrop on Deel’s internal communications without Deel’s permission.”

As of April 14, Rippling was attempting to serve Alex Bouaziz with legal papers, but French bailiffs hired by Rippling were unable to find him. Deel’s CEO was reportedly in Dubai at the time, further complicating Rippling’s efforts to serve him. A Deel spokesperson clarified that Alex lives in Israel and was in Dubai for Passover with his family.