WPP files to seal Foster complaint, arguing allegations ‘immaterial’ to case
In a legal filing on Thursday, lawyers for WPP responded to claims in an amended filing by a former executive suing the company for wrongful termination and retaliation, arguing the claims should be struck from the public record.
In his amended filing, former executive Richard Foster detailed claims alleging illegal business practices by WPP and its media-buying arm, GroupM (now WPP Media), carried out through proprietary trading efforts. He claimed WPP client Sony corroborated this through an investigation, and that a separate, concurrent class action lawsuit against WPP also supported his claims, adding that his internal dissent led to his sidelining and eventual firing.
Lawyers for WPP responded by arguing Foster’s latest filing contains “highly confidential and sensitive” material that they believe is “immaterial” to Foster’s case and should be sealed from the public docket “to prevent further prejudice to defendants and harm to non-parties who have nothing to do with this action”.
They argued the public has “no compelling interest” in accessing the material publicised by Foster “other than the satisfaction of “mere curiosity” and that the publication of such material “threatens [WPP’s] competitive position”.
While WPP’s filing does not provide any evidence to directly refute the detailed claims made by Foster, WPP’s lawyers said they intend to “address the deficiencies” in Foster’s amended complaint “in a forthcoming motion to dismiss” the lawsuit.
For now, they referred to Foster’s allegations as “salacious” and “muckraking” and his legal action as “nothing more than a disgruntled employee’s naked attempt to leverage an exorbitant payout”.
Seven things you need to know about the ex-WPP whistleblower’s latest legal filing
WPP’s lawyers noted the filing came “scarcely two business days” before scheduled oral arguments were to begin on WPP’s original motion to dismiss Foster’s initial complaint, filed last November, suggesting the amended complaint was done “to salvage his patently unavailing whistleblower claims” with “immaterial and salacious allegations designed purely to harass the defendants [WPP] and their clients.”
Here are three additional takeaways from WPP’s latest legal filing:
WPP suggests Foster obtained Sony investigation by ‘improper means’
In the filing’s preliminary statement, WPP’s lawyers accused Foster of wrongly obtaining details of Sony’s investigation into WPP’s trading practice, which Foster alleged had concluded that the proprietary trading scheme was illegal.
Sony’s investigation occurred in 2025 and concluded with Sony confronting WPP executives at its Japan offices in December of that year. At the meeting, Sony allegedly explained that it found WPP “deliberately designed a broker model in China to function as a financial warehouse to hold rebates for later utilisation”, wrongly retaining $350m in its rebate pool in China in 2024 while passing just $110m on to clients.
Sony’s investigation also allegedly concluded the scheme “proliferated across other markets […] serving as a lever to artificially inflate earnings at WPP.”
Without directly refuting the details of Sony’s investigation, WPP’s lawyers argued that Foster should not have publicised this information and likely did not legally obtain it as evidence.
“The fact that Sony has never publicly disclosed this information, and [Foster’s] refusal to name his source, strongly indicates that he obtained the information by improper means,” WPP’s lawyers wrote.
They added they believe “none of these allegations has any bearing or relevance” on Foster’s whistleblower claims, arguing Sony’s investigation occurred after his termination and in a market (China) in which he was not personally involved.
“[Foster] included them in the amended complaint solely to sow discord between defendants [WPP] and their clients,” lawyers for WPP argued.
Foster argued senior leaders at WPP acknowledged the improper trading scheme in China had expanded globally, and that the conclusion of Sony’s independent investigation supports his claim that he was wrongly retaliated against for raising similar concerns with his superiors.
Still, WPP’s lawyers further argued that, as Sony is a non-party to the present litigation, information relating to the company in Foster’s amended complaint should be sealed.
WPP says Foster breached confidentiality agreement
Lawyers for WPP also noted that Foster’s contractual obligations to WPP — both under his employment agreement and his termination — should have required him not to share sensitive or confidential company information publicly.
Foster’s employment contract, they said, contained “comprehensive non-disclosure and confidentiality provisions” including disallowing him from disclosing “any confidential information or trade secret” of the company or any of its clients, or “knowingly utilis[ing] such confidential information or trade secret to his own benefit”.
All memoranda, notes, records or other documents compiled by Foster or made available to him that concern WPP and/or its clients, the contract states, “shall be the property of the company and shall be delivered to the company on the termination of Foster’s employment”.
Several exhibitions originally created by Foster while he worked as a WPP employee were disclosed in the amended complaint and were therefore done so wrongfully, WPP’s lawyers argued.
Foster’s reveal of communications with general counsel asked to be sealed
Lawyers for WPP likewise argued that communications between Foster and WPP’s general counsel of media, Nicola McCormick, also be sealed “for good cause”, on the grounds that their reveal breaches attorney-client privilege.
Foster’s amended complaint features extensive communications between him and McCormick, in which he alleges the general counsel acknowledged WPP’s illegal trading practices were “not confined to China” but rather “symptomatic of a global problem”.
Foster also alleged their conversations demonstrate how Foster “explicitly feared retaliation” from senior WPP executives for warning WPP Media CEO Brian Lesser about the potential illegality of the company’s trading practices.
“Plaintiff decided to also disclose communications he had with defendants’ general counsel during his employment that are obviously protected by the attorney-client privilege,” lawyers for WPP wrote. “Even the most junior practitioner knows that that privilege belongs to defendants [WPP]; it was not the plaintiff’s to waive.”
WPP supports this by arguing McCormick “approached Foster for his input on a revised media policy” and therefore had “enlisted Foster’s assistance” in a professional manner.
“These were not off-the-clock conversations between friends,” lawyers for WPP continued. “On its face, the amended complaint concedes that McCormick was performing her duties as general counsel to render advice to defendants [WPP] in the form of ‘a new company policy on “investment”‘. Defendants certainly never consented to disclosure of their privileged attorney-client communications on the public docket.”