On April 28, 2025, Deel confirmed that CEO Alex Bouaziz and lawyers Asif Malik and Andrea David Mieli had agreed to accept service of Rippling’s Irish lawsuit through Deel’s Irish solicitors, Hayes Solicitors. Deel Inc., the U.S. corporate entity, had already been served on April 16.
The agreement removed a procedural dispute over how the individual defendants would receive the court papers. It did not establish that Rippling’s allegations were true, determine liability, or amount to an admission of corporate espionage.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
What Deel agreed to on April 28
Deel agreed that Hayes Solicitors could accept legal service on behalf of Bouaziz, Malik and Mieli in the Irish proceedings. The arrangement concerned three individual defendants:
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →- Alex Bouaziz, Deel’s chief executive officer;
- Asif Malik, a Deel lawyer; and
- Andrea David Mieli, also identified as a Deel lawyer.
Hayes Solicitors accepted service in court in Dublin. This was separate from the earlier service of Deel Inc., which Rippling said took place on April 16. Therefore, saying simply that “Deel was served” obscures an important distinction: the company had already been served, while the three individuals later agreed to accept service through counsel.
#1 Best Overall
TechCrunch reported the April 28 agreement and the parties’ competing accounts of the preceding service attempts in its contemporaneous report.
Why service became controversial
Rippling said it had struggled to serve Bouaziz, Malik and Mieli personally in France and Italy. According to an affidavit attributed to Rippling and reported by TechCrunch, French bailiffs went to a Paris address associated with Bouaziz on April 10. A relative reportedly said Bouaziz was in Dubai.
Media reports also placed Bouaziz in Dubai around that period. Deel disputed the implication that he had deliberately avoided service. Deel said Bouaziz lived in Israel and had traveled to Dubai briefly for Passover. It also said Malik’s move to Dubai had been planned well before the lawsuit.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsThose accounts should not be treated as equivalent to a court finding. Rippling’s affidavit described its position; Deel rejected the suggestion that its executives were intentionally evading service. Being in Dubai, France, Italy or elsewhere does not by itself prove an intent to avoid legal process.
What service of process means
Service of process is the formal delivery or notification of court documents in the way required by the relevant procedural rules. It is designed to establish that a defendant has been properly notified and can participate in the case.
Accepting service through solicitors can avoid continued attempts at personal delivery, subject to the court’s orders and applicable rules. But service is procedural, not substantive. It does not mean that a defendant:
Rank #3
- admits the allegations;
- accepts liability;
- concedes that the claimant’s legal theory is correct;
- agrees that every claim or defendant is properly before the court; or
- has lost the case.
In this dispute, the April 28 agreement allowed the Irish litigation to move forward without resolving the underlying accusations.
The Irish court’s earlier procedural orders
The agreement followed steps already taken by Ireland’s High Court. The court record later summarized in People Centre, Inc. v. O’Brien and Others, [2026] IEHC 180, records the following sequence:
| Date | Procedural development |
|---|---|
| April 2, 2025 | The High Court joined Bouaziz, Mieli, Deel Inc. and Malik as defendants and authorized Rippling to issue and serve notice outside Ireland. |
| April 7, 2025 | An amended plenary summons was issued. |
| April 16, 2025 | Rippling said Deel Inc. was served. |
| April 28, 2025 | Bouaziz, Malik and Mieli agreed to accept service through Hayes Solicitors. |
| May 16, 2025 | Deel entered an appearance in the Irish case. |
| May 17–19, 2025 | Rippling delivered and then amended its statement of claim. |
This timeline shows that April 28 was not the filing of a new lawsuit. It was a service-related development in an Irish proceeding that had already been initiated and was operating under court orders.
What Rippling’s lawsuit alleges
Rippling accused Deel of cultivating or paying an insider, Keith O’Brien, to obtain confidential information. O’Brien was a Rippling employee in Ireland and became a central figure in the dispute.
Rippling’s claims involved alleged trade-secret theft, corporate espionage and related misconduct. Those remain allegations, not established facts. Deel contested Rippling’s account.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Deel later filed counterclaims and accused Rippling of misconduct of its own, including allegations involving an insider or the impersonation of a customer. Deel’s April 25, 2025 U.S. filing sets out its account of the broader conflict and is available here.
Best Value
The separate U.S. litigation
Deel’s April 25 filing was part of related U.S. litigation, not the Irish service process itself. The U.S. and Irish cases concern the same broader corporate dispute but are separate proceedings, with different courts, pleadings and procedural questions.
Deel later said that a U.S. federal court dismissed fraud and RICO claims against it in August 2025. That statement should be read narrowly: dismissal of particular U.S. claims does not automatically dispose of all claims in the United States or resolve the Irish lawsuit. Deel’s public account is available in its August 2025 litigation update.
Later U.S. docket activity also showed that litigation over Deel’s counterclaims continued, including proceedings reflected in a May 2026 docket order.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Where the Irish case stood in 2026
The Irish dispute continued beyond the April 2025 service issue. On March 20, 2026, Ireland’s High Court issued a judgment concerning an application by Deel Inc. relating to production of a termination agreement and other litigation-related relief.
The judgment records that Deel had entered an appearance and was participating in the case. It was a ruling on a particular disclosure application, not a final determination of every underlying allegation or the parties’ ultimate liability.
What the agreement did—and did not—change
It did change
- How the three individual Deel defendants received the Irish court documents.
- The immediate dispute over continued attempts to locate and personally serve those individuals.
- The practical ability of the Irish case to proceed against the relevant defendants through their solicitors.
It did not change
- Whether Rippling’s espionage and trade-secret allegations would ultimately succeed.
- Whether Deel or any individual defendant was liable.
- Whether every claim or defendant was subject to the court’s jurisdiction.
- The separate nature of the U.S. proceedings.
- The fact that the parties gave opposing accounts of the attempted service and the underlying dispute.
Accordingly, the most accurate description is that Deel agreed to accept service for the three named individuals through Irish counsel after a dispute over personal service. It is inaccurate to characterize the agreement as a surrender, a finding that Deel evaded service, or an admission that Rippling’s claims were true.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
