17608: Mo’ Motions, No Motion In WPP Whistleblower Lawsuit.

 

MediaPost reported the latest motion sickness in the WPP whistleblower lawsuit, spotlighting a motion filed by the alleged whistleblower opposing a motion filed by the global flaming dumpster to dismiss the case.

Seems like lots of motions without any forward motion.

Foster Files Motion Opposing WPP’s Summary Dismissal Request

By Steve McClellan

Alleged WPP whistleblower Richard Foster filed a motion Friday opposing WPP’s request that the New York State Supreme Court judge hearing the case toss it before it goes to trial.    

Foster argues that his lawsuit should move forward because he has provided enough facts to support his claims that WPP and its media division retaliated against him after he reported what he believed were unlawful business practices—primarily misappropriating client media rebates and repackaging them for sale by its own principal trading unit.  

In late 2024 Foster submitted a report to WPP Media CEO Brian Lesser describing what he contended were legal and governance problems. Last month, Foster submitted details of a separate investigation by Sony that concluded that WPP Media siphoned $350 million in media rebates in China in a single year for its own use that properly belonged to clients. And he argues that the Sony probe backs up his own assertions that WPP wrongfully pocketed client rebates.   

A separate hearing has been scheduled for October where WPP will present its case for sealing the Sony material, which it has said is not relevant to the Foster litigation. Foster will argue why the Sony probe details should be allowed as evidence.  

According to Foster, Lesser acknowledged that the report raised "legal issues,” but instead of addressing the concerns, allegedly shared the report with an executive whom Foster had criticized.  

After that, Foster says he was gradually pushed aside, excluded from important meetings and projects, and ultimately fired in July 2025. 

“Defendants ask the Court to decide three questions on the pleadings: what Foster believed, what he communicated, and why he was the subject of months of retaliation,” Foster states in his latest motion. “Each is a question of fact that is not appropriately decided on a motion to dismiss.” 

He argues that the court must assume his factual allegations are true at this early stage. He argues WPP is asking the judge to weigh evidence and resolve factual disputes, which should happen later in the case, not on a motion to dismiss. 

Foster argues that Lesser knew about his concerns, and that retaliation began shortly after his report was delivered, and that there was a continuing pattern of adverse treatment leading up to his firing. 

He also notes that in previous filings by WPP, the company’s explanation for firing him is inconsistent—that it has characterized his departure as an "ignominious termination" while also saying it resulted from a global restructuring. Those explanations conflict and raise factual questions that should be resolved at trial rather than be dismissed now. 

Foster, who ran WPP’s content investment and branded entertainment unit, Motion, is seeking $100 million in severance and damages. He says the company offered him a seven-figure severance package conditioned on his silence, which he says he rejected.

17596: For WPP, TGIF’d Up.

 

MediaPost reported increasing motion sickness in the WPP whistleblower lawsuit.

Previously, the single White operating company sought to seal all references to an alleged Sony Pictures investigation, insisting the “whistleblower” acquired the information via improper means.

The “whistleblower” countered by claiming Sony Pictures brought the investigation details to his legal team earlier this year—completely unsolicited and sans confidentiality request.

WPP boasts being “The Trusted Growth Partner For The World’s Leading Brands.”

Sony likely questions the “Trusted” claim.

Sony Briefed Foster’s Legal Team On Its WPP Rebate Probe

By Steve McClellan

Last month WPP “whistleblower” Richard Foster submitted evidence in his wrongful termination suit against the company of a previously undisclosed investigation by client Sony that concluded WPP pocketed $350 million in media rebates in China belonging to clients.   

A week later WPP demanded that the New York State Supreme Court judge hearing the case seal all documents related to the Sony probe, alleging that Foster likely acquired documents improperly.  

But according to Foster, that’s not the case. In a court filing yesterday opposing WPP’s demand to seal, Foster said that Sony brought the findings to Foster’s legal team earlier this year, without any prior solicitation or request for confidentiality.  

According to the documents Sony made initial contact with the Foster’s law firm (Brewer Attorney’s & Counselors) in February. In May Sony requested a meeting which took place remotely when company representatives briefed Foster’s legal team on the rebate investigation that Sony undertook. 

“Sony, a sophisticated client, examined the same Rebate and Purchase Risk practices Plaintiff reported, reached the same conclusions about them, and presented those findings to WPP’s two most senior lawyer,” Foster’s motion states.  

“That evidence bears on three contested elements of this case. It supports the objective reasonableness of Plaintiff’s belief, because a disinterested third party with access to the underlying data interpreted the practices the same way Foster did. It bears on Defendants’ knowledge, because the findings went to the officers Defendants say exercised “robust formal internal controls.” And it bears on causation and pretext, because the executives Sony identified are the same executives Plaintiff alleges removed him.” 

Foster also argued that WPP’s demand to seal discussions he had with company attorney Nicola McCormick should be denied. “Defendants presume that because Nicola McCormick is a lawyer, her communications with Plaintiff are privileged. That is not the law,” per the filing.  

“Defendants identify no communication in which she rendered legal advice and submit no affidavit from her. Plaintiff approached her as a business executive, and she answered in that capacity.” 

Foster also argued separately that WPP’s motion for sanctions should be denied, submitting that no orders were violated, that discussions with McCormick were not privileged and that the Sony probe materials were obtained properly, among other reasons.  

In addition to the filings, Brewer attorney William A. Brewer III, issued a comment: “Mr. Foster alleges that on multiple occasions, he reported through appropriate channels what he reasonably believed were systemic problems in WPP’s trading practices, Mr. Foster named names and provided specific, detailed reports of undisclosed profiteering by Defendants in the form of rebates. He believes those reports led to retaliation against him by his former employer — and ultimately resulted in his termination.” 

17591: More Motion Sickness At WPP.

MediaPost reported on motion sickness at WPP, whereby the single White operating company filed more motions to dismiss the whistleblower lawsuit.

The latest filings presented two versions of the motion to dismiss: one version available to the public redacts all mentions of the alleged Sony Pictures investigation, and a second version not available to the public features no redacted material.

At this rate, any future actions will probably involve AI-generated motions.

Given WPP’s fascination with AI, it’s surprising legal duties haven’t been executed by the wondrous technology. WPP certainly has enough data from countless past lawsuits and court proceedings for creating the algorithms to make it happen.

WPP Files Motion To Dismiss Foster Case (You Can Read The Redacted Version)

By Steve McClellan

WPP has filed a motion to dismiss the wrongful termination case brought by former GroupM executive Richard Foster.  

The firm filed two versions of the motion including one that redacts all references to a previously undisclosed investigation by WPP client Sony that Foster brought to light in an amended complaint last month. That version is available to the public. A second version of the motion with no redacted material has been filed with the court but is not available to the public. 

Many of the points made by WPP in the latest motion have been argued by the firm in previous filings. For one, the firm argues that Foster is not a “whistleblower,” who was dismissed in retaliation, as he alleges. Instead, the firm argues he was one of many let go in a reduction in force event that occurred in 2025 and is seeking an outsized payout rarely offered to laid-off employees ($100 million). 

All direct references to the Sony probe are redacted in the latest filing. The motion indirectly refers to it as a set of allegations that are “incendiary...scandalous, prejudicial, and utterly irrelevant,” to Foster’s claims. In earlier filings WPP asked the court to seal all references to the Sony probe. It has also demanded that Foster reveal how he obtained the heretofore undisclosed investigation materials, suggesting that he and his legal team acquired them improperly. 

Foster alleges that Sony’s investigation concluded that WPP pocketed $350 million in rebates belonging to clients in China in 2024. He asserts that the probe supports his own case that he exposed rebate schemes at the company that were inappropriate, which he alleges was the main reason he was let go.  

“Richard Foster’s seventeen-year run at GroupM was marked by his constant self-promotion, often through opportunistic business proposals advocating for greater investment in his division, Motion Content Group (“Motion”), over larger and more profitable divisions of GroupM,” WPP states in its latest motion. 

“In the wake of his ignominious termination—the result of Defendants’ global restructuring and reduction in force (“RIF”)—Plaintiff tried to extract a seven-figure severance from Defendants by threatening to file a messy public lawsuit. Those efforts failed, and this case (the “Action”) is the result.” 

Foster’s amended complaint, WPP adds, “suffers the same inevitable defects as Plaintiff’s original pleading, recasting Plaintiff’s longstanding self-advocacy as “whistleblowing,” construing ordinary workplace disputes as retaliation, and failing to allege any causal connection between Plaintiff’s activities and his termination. Setting aside those shortcomings, the Amended Complaint further piles on sensational and irrelevant accusations [the Sony probe] based largely on information obtained after Plaintiff’s termination.” 

Foster also fails to plead “essential elements” required for a retaliation challenge under both New York and California laws, WPP stated.  

William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and lead counsel to Foster issued a response to WPP’s latest filing: 

“In the three weeks since Mr. Foster filed his Amended Complaint, WPP has filed a flurry of motions which portray a Defendant panicked by the strength of Mr. Foster’s allegations against them—which include findings of clients that support his claims.”  

Brewer added that, “Mr. Foster alleges that on multiple occasions, he reported through appropriate channels what he reasonably believed was a systemic problem in WPP’s trading practices—naming names and providing specific, detailed reports. He believes those reports led to retaliation against him. Mr. Foster remains confident that he will prevail.”

17586: For Court Performance, WPP Scores A Triple-Trouble.

 

Adweek published a WPP cases study—that is, the trade journal spotlighted three separate legal cases arguably exposing the alleged “global crime scheme” orchestrated by executives at WPP Media (formerly GroupM).

WPP honchos are likely relieved to see the Adweek piece is subscription-only content, meaning a limited number of people will read the sordid details. Can’t imagine excerpts from such reporting might appear in WPP Media pitch decks.

At this point, the single White operating company is probably considering launching another unit: WPP Legal Defense.

17585: The WPP Empire Strikes Back.

 

MediaPost reported WPP is now demanding the New York State Supreme Court not only dismiss the whistleblower lawsuit, but also the whistleblower’s lawyers.

Apparently, the single White operating company isn’t satisfied with simply dismissing thousands of its own workers.

What’s more, WPP wants to go after the whistleblower’s sources and anonymous accomplices, particularly anyone involved in uncovering the Sony Pictures investigation allegedly charging WPP ran a “global crime scheme” through its media practice.

Not sure why WPP is so upset. After all, the company implemented a whistleblower hotline about a decade ago, encouraging employees to call out wrongdoing without fear of retaliation.

The whistleblower hotline was reportedly ringing off the hook in 2023, arguably showing its effectiveness.

Yet today WPP is on the offensive, attacking purported whistleblowers and anyone associated with them.

Hey, if you want to stop whistleblowers, consider avoiding behavior that incites whistleblowing.

Try earning the trust of a worldwide workforce.

WPP Moves To Have Foster’s Lawyers Dismissed, Sony Probe Sources Divulged

By Steve McClellan

WPP is demanding further action by the New York State Supreme Court Judge hearing the wrongful termination suit by former WPP Media (FKA GroupM) executive and purported whistleblower Richard Foster.  

Foster has alleged that WPP terminated him after he complained to senior executives at the company that it was systematically misappropriating media rebates that belonged to clients. 

Earlier this month in court papers Foster outlined a previously undisclosed investigation by client Sony that exposed a rebate scheme that cost clients hundreds of millions of dollars in China and possibly elsewhere.   

While WPP has not disputed the accuracy of Foster’s disclosures, it has asserted that Foster obtained the Sony report by inappropriate means and that all references to it be sealed. The company alleges that Foster and his legal team knew it was unlawful to disclose the Sony probe and separate confidential discussions that Foster had with senior lawyer Nicola McCormick.  

In a follow-up motion for oral argument, WPP is now arguing that redacting and sealing those references are not “workable options” to address the harm it has suffered and could suffer in the future.  

In addition to dismissing Foster’s amended complaint “with prejudice,” WPP wants monetary sanctions imposed on the plaintiff as well as the dismissal of the law firm, the Brewer Firm and its legal team from having anything more to do with the case.   

WPP is also demanding that Foster be ordered to disclose how he obtained information about the Sony investigation, “including when and how it was obtained, its source, all persons who received or reviewed it, and whether and to whom it was further disseminated.”

17578: Another Perspective On Whistleblowers In Adland.

MediaPost published a perspective on the WPP whistleblower lawsuit that made one significant point:

Don’t rely on agency self-reporting. Demand log-level data for programmatic buys and contractually insist on third-party audits for all barter or non-transparent arrangements. If an agency claims an inventory pool isn’t auditable, treat that as a red flag.

This notion could be directly applied to the history of DEIBA+ in Adland.

That is, White advertising agencies cannot be trusted with self-reporting, as firms often inflated representation figures by counting minority employees like janitorial maintenance, security, and cafeteria workers.

Additionally, White advertising agencies cannot be trusted with self-regulation, as firms routinely engage in performative propaganda, heat shields, and delegating diversity.

Alas, no one ever succeeded in demanding third-party audits—or disputing White advertising agencies’ classic excuses for non-compliance, lack of commitment, and absence of accountability. Forget red flags—White flags are the weapon of choice.

BTW iconic DEIBA+ whistleblowers in Adland were never able to pursue a $100 million lawsuit.

The WPP scenario exposes schemes involving media, which mirrors Adland’s duplicity involving minorities.

The Foster Whistleblower Case: How Holdco Culture Enabled WPP’s $350M Mess

By Maarten Albarda, Featured Contributor

It has been a week of legal fireworks, relevant to day-to-day marketing management. No, I am not (yet) commenting on the federal trial brought by 29 U.S. states accusing Meta of designing manipulative features that addict children and harm teen mental health on Facebook and Instagram. That trial is underway in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland.

I am talking about Richard Foster’s $100 million wrongful termination and retaliation lawsuit against WPP, playing out in the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

The latest legal filings in this suit against WPP make for grim reading. Internal audit details from Sony allege undisclosed markups, shell brokers used as financial warehouses, and missing rebates disguised as principal media buying in China.

To understand the scope, let’s understand what happened. A 2023 Chinese government probe into GroupM (now WPP Media) executives over kickbacks led to criminal convictions. And now we learn that a Sony investigation alleges that WPP used 47 shell brokers to improperly retain $350 million in client rebates in 2024 alone. GroupM allegedly passed off proprietary media deals to launder those funds into corporate profit while pitching artificial “80% discounts” to clients.

I don’t think you can hold WPP corporate fully responsible for the rogue mechanics of a local scam. The individuals in China clearly acted for their own personal enrichment in a market where opacity is sadly often standard procedure.

Still, WPP corporate does not get off scot-free. It clearly missed the mark in governance. By aggressively pushing principal media trading across its network to juice corporate margins, WPP’s leadership set the tone at the top. They created an environment where local executives were guided into pursuing principal media income to bolster agency performance (and with that, their personal performance score).

If I were a juror on the Foster case, I’d view the Sony findings as a crucial signal. They show WPP built a culture where principal-beneficial buying was incentivized, leaving the back door wide open for local leadership to take it to extreme levels.

Which raises the question every marketer should ask: How many other “Chinas” exist in agency holding company networks? And why did it take a client audit by Sony to expose this?

It’s fair to say (again) that marketers should stop treating principal media as a harmless discount. When your agency buys inventory upfront and resells it to you, they aren’t your fiduciary agent anymore. They’re a vendor selling goods they own. If you don’t know the exact markup, you’re funding their profit margins (and executive bonuses).

To prevent this from happening, you should require explicit opt-outs for proprietary or non-transparent media, unless your C-suite approves a written business case. Demand clear visibility into media flowcharts and mandate proof-of-performance data down to a detailed performance level (and compare/contrast that against “normal” performance for “normal” paid media buys).

Don’t rely on agency self-reporting. Demand log-level data for programmatic buys and contractually insist on third-party audits for all barter or non-transparent arrangements. If an agency claims an inventory pool isn’t auditable, treat that as a red flag.

The agency model is shifting. Agencies need profit, but you need transparency. Set the rules in your contract now, or your media dollars will end up paying someone else’s bonus. 

17577: On Blowback For WPP Whistleblower Lawsuit.

  

MediaPost reported WPP made good on its promise to refile an updated motion to dismiss the whistleblower lawsuit.

Corporations typically decline from openly discussing pending legal disputes, yet the updated motion—which WPP surely knew would undergo online examination by news outlets—presented the single White operating company an opportunity to take its argument to the court of public opinion.

WPP is seeking to seal an investigation by Sony Pictures alleging WPP Media—i.e., the former GroupM firm—engaged in global improprieties involving rebates.

The motion states, “The fact that Sony has never publicly disclosed this information, and Plaintiff’s refusal to name his source, strongly indicates that he obtained the information by improper means.”  

Um, doesn’t that fall under the definition of a whistleblower—to access insider information to expose wrongdoing?

In a court of law, sealing such data from the proceedings might be a legitimate tactic.

In the court of public opinion—and coming from a single White operating company boasting to be “the trusted growth partner for the world’s leading brands” and whose CEO consistently stresses the word trust—it’s just bad optics.

WPP Demands Court Seal Foster’s Sony Probe Details

By Steve McClellan

Last week former GroupM executive Richard Foster filed an amended complaint in his wrongful termination lawsuit against WPP that alleges he was dismissed illegally for exposing the company’s improper withholding and use of rebates that belonged to clients.  

In the amended complaint, filed in New York State Supreme Court, Foster detailed a separate (and up to that point not publicly disclosed) investigation by WPP client Sony Pictures that Foster said supported his own claims about the firm’s illicit handling of rebates. According to Foster, that probe found that in 2023 in China WPP returned approximately $110 million in rebates to clients while it wrongfully retained $350 million in discounts from sellers. Foster asserted that WPP engaged in similar practices in other countries. 

Yesterday WPP filed court papers demanding that all of Foster’s references to the Sony probe be sealed, arguing that the investigation was confidential and that Foster’s refusal to state how he obtained the report suggests that he may have done so illegally.  

“The fact that Sony has never publicly disclosed this information, and Plaintiff’s refusal to name his source, strongly indicates that he obtained the information by improper means,” WPP stated in its motion.  

The firm also cited a nondisclosure agreement that Foster had signed prohibiting him from disclosing confidential information related to his employment at the company. 

Foster’s amended complaint also alleged that executives within the company agreed with him that GroupM/WPP Media’s rebate policies were in some cases illegal and unsustainable. Those executives, per the complaint, included Nicola McCormick, general counsel at WPP, who previously was general counsel at GroupM.  

In its motion this week, WPP also demanded that references to conversations Foster had with McCormick as outlined in his complaint also be sealed.  

WPP argued that those discussions “are obviously protected by the attorney-client privilege. Even the most junior practitioner knows that that privilege belongs to Defendants; it was not Plaintiff’s to waive.” 

Nevertheless, WPP added, Foster “violated the privilege to prejudice and disadvantage Defendants in these proceedings. The addition of salacious, muckraking allegations and disclosure of highly sensitive and/or privileged information in the Amended Complaint cannot change the brutal truth: Plaintiff is not and never has been a whistleblower, and this entire lawsuit is nothing more than a disgruntled employee’s naked attempt to leverage an exorbitant payout.” Foster is seeking $100 million in damages. 

WPP said it would “address the deficiencies” in Foster’s amended complaint in a forthcoming motion to dismiss the case. 

“In the meantime,” WPP added, “Defendants’ and their clients’ privileged and confidential information remains on the public docket. This information must be sealed to prevent further prejudice to Defendants and harm to nonparties who have nothing to do with this Action.”  

17571: More Whistling On WPP Whistleblower Lawsuit.

 

Mediapost also reported on a new filing in the WPP whistleblower lawsuit.

The Mediapost report includes a standard vehement denial from WPP that states: “This amended complaint, filed just prior to the hearing, is an attempt to avoid its dismissal. Both complaints are baseless and without merit, and WPP will be re-filing an updated motion to dismiss. We have confidence that this matter will be resolved through due legal process.”

Can’t help but wonder how the outcome might impact Eviscerate 28. The Roserrection continues to constantly evolve—maybe WPP should be renamed WIP (Worsening In Progress).

WPP Whistleblower Amends Complaint, Says Sony Probe Backs His Claims

By Steve McClellan

Last November former GroupM executive Richard Foster filed suit against the company, alleging he had been wrongfully terminated for exposing what he said was an unlawful rebate scheme whereby the company was secretly pocketing millions in rebates that belonged to clients.  

Now Foster has filed an amended complaint that details a separate investigation by one of those clients—Sony Pictures. According to Foster that probe found that in 2023 in China and likely elsewhere, GroupM (now known as WPP Media) illicitly pocketed rebates belonging to clients. In the case of China, approximately $110 million was passed to the Clients, while $350 million was wrongfully retained by WPP.  

That probe followed an investigation by Chinese authorities that began in 2023 that alleged “rebate mismanagement” by several GroupM China employees.  

That Chinese government probe culminated last month when Di Fei, the former chief investment officer at the China operations of WPP Media received a life sentence after being convicted earlier this year for his part in a bribery/kickback scandal stemming from that probe. Several other employees were also convicted and received lighter sentences. Fei is said to be appealing and WPP stressed that the company itself was not a party to the investigation and had cooperated fully throughout it. 

The separate probe by Sony as detailed in the amended Foster complaint alleges that the rebates pocketed by WPP were hidden as part of an elaborate scheme that mixed principal trading funds with a rebate pool which were then sold back to clients.   

“Sony representatives identified Proprietary Media (referred to as “PM/Programmatic”) as a primary mechanism for Rebate distribution, wherein the purported ‘discount’ WPP offers Clients on Inventory is manipulated: WPP pays a fraction of the out-of-pocket cost to acquire the Inventory, subsidizes the remaining balance using funds from the Rebate pool, and pockets the resulting margin as near pure profit shielded from audits,” states Foster’s amended complaint.  

The complaint adds, “Although deployed in China, the scheme proliferated across other markets, serving as a lever to artificially inflate earnings at WPP.” 

According to Foster, “Sony supported its findings with contractual language regarding Rebate policies, transaction-level financial reporting, internal emails regarding Rebate amounts, and documentation of WPP tracking systems. This evidence demonstrates how WPP was able to retain the Rebate pool funds and distribute to WPP through these various mechanisms.”  

Foster’s complaint also asserts that “When Sony presented evidence that the 80% discounts offered on media are funded with the money from unpublished, ‘black box’ Rebates, the WPP representatives said they had no answer to give them, because they did not want to ‘know the answer.’”

The complaint alleges that executives within the company agreed with Foster that GroupM/WPP Media’s rebate policies were in some cases illegal and unsustainable. Those executives, per the complaint included Nicola McCormick, general counsel at WPP who previously was general counsel at GroupM. “When Foster asked McCormick directly about the risk posed by GroupM Trading’s Rebate practices, she characterized it as ‘existential,’ Foster’s amended complaint states.  

The amended complaint in New York State Supreme Court, comes shortly before a hearing is scheduled on WPP's motion to dismiss the case. Foster is seeking $100 million in damages.  

A WPP spokesperson issued a statement: “This amended complaint, filed just prior to the hearing, is an attempt to avoid its dismissal. Both complaints are baseless and without merit, and WPP will be re-filing an updated motion to dismiss. We have confidence that this matter will be resolved through due legal process.”

17570: WPP Media Whistleblower Lawsuit Takes More Blows.

 

Business Insider and Adweek reported on a new filing in the WPP whistleblower lawsuit.

The filing alleges Sony—a major client of the single White operating company—conducted an independent investigation and presented the findings to WPP in 2025.

The analysis from Sony stated WPP operated a “global crime scheme” across numerous markets, including China—where the former head of WPP’s media operation in the country received a life imprisonment sentence for media-related improprieties, and two other executives were also hit with stiff sentences.

Such allegations continue to counter WPP CEO Cindy Rose’s proclamations of the corporation being a trusted growth partner for brands.

Busted growth partner appears to be a more appropriate term.

17529: On Trust, Distrust, And Mistrust At WPP.

More About Advertising spotlighted troubles at WPP Media, including:

 

• The former head of WPP’s media operation in China received a life imprisonment sentence for charges stemming from a $176 million scam—and two others were also hit with stiff sentences.

 

• The former head of a GroupM division in New York City filed a ‘whistleblower’ lawsuit, charging he was fired for raising red flags that WPP’s trading division illegally retained profits that should have been passed back to clients.

 

Additionally, there’s a class-action lawsuit filed by shareholders charging WPP with deceptively sugarcoating profits last year.

 

It all makes for bad optics, especially given the single White operating company is restructuring itself as a media-first enterprise.

 

WPP CEO Cindy Rose declared, “We want to be a trusted growth partner for our clients in the era of AI.”

 

The corporate website proclaims, “WPP Is The Trusted Growth Partner For The World’s Leading Brands.”

 

Okay, except WPP displays internal distrust. Media is globally viewed with suspicion and concern by clients. And Adland practitioners are consistently rated among the least-trusted professionals.

 

Trust is earned. So is distrust and mistrust.

 

WPP’s China crisis – why is the holding company so accident-prone?

 

By Stephen Foster

 

Any business handling millions, sometimes billions, of other people’s money on ultra-tight margins is open to fraud, indeed it may be tempted to try itself.

 

The former boss of WPP’s media operation (GroupM) in China has been sentenced to life imprisonment, accused of masterminding a $176m scam. Two others have also received stiff sentences. The Chinese judicial system is hardly famed for its transparency but WPP has been careful to distance itself from the three employees. Its business in China, hardly a surprise, has been hammered.

 

That isn’t the only cloud on the horizon though. Over in NYC there’s what’s being termed a $100m ‘whistleblower’ lawsuit from Richard Foster, one-time head of GroupM’s Motion Content Group (whatever that was) alleging that WPP fired him for raising concerns that WPP’s trading division used client spending power to secure cash rebates and volume-based discounts from media owners, illegally retaining profits rather than passing them back to clients. Ring a bell?

 

Also in NYC, there’s a class action by angry shareholders claiming the company failed to appraise them fully of the collapse in profits last summer which, ultimately, led to the departure of CEO Mark Read. Making overly-optimistic noises can be costly.

 

Finally (and there may of course be more) WPP is involved in a long-running dispute in Kenya with the founder and former CEO of WPP Scangroup Bharat Thakrar alleging that WPP, among other things, has been using Scangroup money to prop up the holding company, to the detriment of Scangroup. It’s redolent of other far-flung WPP disputes including its agencies in Australia.

 

Now WPP may deal with all these issues and emerge smelling of roses but they surely affect its ability to trade its way out of current problems. They must be especially galling for all those people at Ogilvy and VML who have just notched up a stellar Cannes Lions, seemingly doing a great job for their clients despite all the noise (and worse) around them.

 

WPP’s biggest problem – in a competitive field – is debt, around £3bn against a total company value of £2.64bn. New CEO Cindy Rose’s first job is to reverse these positions. But it’s hard to see what else she can sell to do it. It’s already sold out of research (Kantar) and PR (FGS Global) without making much of a dent in the debt. That in itself is something of a puzzle.

 

Then there’s what we might politely called proprietary media trading (or broking), the smokey activity behind many of the above issues, including China where media deals seem to have been carved up in a Shanghai poker game. Almost certainly more such cases will emerge, partly because no-one seems to know whether it’s legal or not. The US courts may help us out.

 

This Cannes Lions should be a turning point for WPP. But there’s still a lot of old baggage lurking in the undergrowth.

17435: On Meta & Google Platform Addiction.

 

MediaPost published commentary on the recent court case ruling Meta and Google (YouTube) liable for platform addiction—a milestone being referred to as social media’s Big Tobacco moment.

 

Will further investigations uncover Menthol moments targeting Blacks?

 

The ‘Big Tobacco’ Moment For Social Media

 

By Maarten Albarda, Featured Contributor

 

Be honest, how many times have you discussed “dwell time” and “session frequency” with your agency or marketing team? We’d look at a chart showing a user spiraling down a three-hour rabbit hole of auto-playing videos and infinite scrolls and think the targeting was super-efficient.

 

But this week, a jury in Los Angeles just looked at those same charts and called them something else: a defective product.

 

For the first time ever, a U.S. jury has found Meta and Google (YouTube) liable for platform addiction. Hot on the heels of that moment, a New Mexico jury slapped Meta with a $375 million verdict over child safety and misleading “safety” claims.

 

This isn’t just another “Big Tech is mean” news cycle. Many have called this the Big Tobacco moment for the social media industry. And if you’re a CMO, your media plan may just have become a potential legal and ethical liability.

 

For years, platforms hid behind a legal framework called Section 230, a “shield” that says they aren’t responsible for what people post. But these recent rulings did something different: They ignored the content and went after the conduct.

 

The courtroom arguments weren’t about a specific bad video or objectionable meme. It was about the design of the platform. The infinite scroll? That’s not a feature; it’s a hook. The aggressive autoplay? That’s a dopamine trap. The court ruled that these platforms are designed to be addictive by nature—and that the companies knew the harm they were causing.

 

For decades, and by the platform’s own guidance, they claimed to be neutral utilities. We assumed if our “brand safety” filters kept our pre-roll ads away from extremist content or the “wrong” target audience, we were the good guys.

 

But here’s how these verdicts have reframed the advertisers’ position: We’ve been funding the R&D of addiction. And with that, are advertisers therefore complicit?

 

Let’s look at this through the lens of your 2026/27 strategy. If Meta and Google are forced to dismantle the very features that drive their “efficiency” (if they have to kill the infinite scroll or opt everyone out of algorithmic “hooks”) your reach is going to diminish.

Your “cost per minute” is going to skyrocket, because those minutes will suddenly become much harder to manufacture. And it will be much harder to identify and single out specific groups of users, based on their interest or behaviors.

 

The “efficiency” we’ve been bragging about to our boards was built on a foundation that a jury just declared negligent. That’s a structural collapse of the very medium.

 

So what should you do? Well, you don’t need to panic and delete your accounts today (there will be appeals), but you do need to stop being a passive advertiser.

 

Ask your media agency for a breakdown of how much of your budget is going toward “forced” or “hook-based” engagement versus intentional, lean-forward viewing. If your ROI is entirely dependent on a user being “trapped” in a feed, you’re in need of a redo.

 

Traditional brand safety is about adjacency: What am I next to? Start asking if the platforms you support are legally compliant with these new standards of design safety.

 

And if the largest part of your budget is in the duopoly, you’re overleveraged in a damaged model. Move toward environments where the user is by choice, not by “loop.”

 

As it turns out, the algorithm might just be a legal liability.