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.

17602: More Amateurish Clubbing Of Callaway And Good Good Golf.

 

MediaPost published yet another perspective swinging at Callaway and Good Good Golf for their misogynistic marketing.

The author insisted the campaign “needs to be studied by anyone in the ad industry.”

Um, not really. There’s nothing new about the cultural cluelessness, circumstances, or root causes displayed by Callaway and Good Good Golf. Unfortunately, the concept and execution fortify a major stereotype about golf; ie, the game is dominated by White men.

The author’s recommendation involves four questions that should have been asked before greenlighting the concept.

Um, not really. Questions should have been asked and answered when writing the brief. And the concept should have been screened against the brief.

Contrary to the author’s contention that the scenario says something about creator campaigns, the issue is more basic.

First, experience, discipline, and mastery of craft are critical for success—it has nothing to do with the titles of anyone behind the production. In today’s arena, creator does not translate to creative director.

Second, insular and exclusive minds generate ignorant ideas. Full stop.

What The Good Good-Callaway Fallout Should Teach Brands About Creator Campaigns

By Kari O’Neill, Op-Ed Contributor

Good Good’s Callaway campaign, which features Good Good co-founder Garrett Clark running down and aggressively tackling female professional golfer Alexis Miestowski to stop her from grabbing his new Good Good-Callaway driver, needs to be studied by anyone in the ad industry.  

This is a profound example of a mistake in creative strategy. The allure of content creators is huge, but brands need to remain hyper-aware of what concepts are strategically sound for their brand. 

What Good Good said inspired the campaign. Good Good may defend the ad by saying it was a parody of the movie Obsession, where the main character buys a supernatural toy that grants him his wish to make his crush fall in love with him — to the point of unsettling horror. Good Good probably stood up in front of executives and claimed that’s how good the driver is — that the audience would be obsessed with it.   

Unfortunately, the response has been the exact opposite, with many calling out its use of domestic violence against women for entertainment. Amidst the backlash, even Clark admitted, it was “a super dumb ad concept, terrible ad in general. Not the greatest idea.”  

Here’s what Callaway needed to ask Good Good before green-lighting the concept.   

Is this pop culture reference relevant for the brand?  

One clear blindspot for Good Good was likely assuming what is popular in its own social circles may not be relevant to Callaway’s audience. Asking if Obsession was in the movie zeitgeist or something the masses would relate to should have been the primary question posed of the concept. Would the ad still resonate if the audience didn’t know about Obsession? Given that Obsession was released in May 2026 nationally and in the summer, a key risk is easily seen that the ad’s reference back to the movie likely would not be top of mind. 
 
Does this reinforce or add to a brand’s story?  

Additionally, a parody can be extremely effective, but only if translated conceptually well from the original creative into an exciting, authentic brand story. In Good Good’s concept, would the target audience see themselves in the story of the parody? Do most people see themselves in a horror film? Probably not. That, in and of itself, should have killed the concept. 
 
Is this the right feeling for the brand?  

Is this ominous feeling the right one Callaway wants people to walk away with after being introduced to this new driver? While the sound design itself clearly is inspired by horror films, it’s clear that the music alludes to harm while being played over an image of a woman being tackled to the ground. Don’t let an internally-focused haze mask the inappropriateness of the concept.  

Who has the power in the story?  

Even if this driver is targeted only to a male audience (which it probably isn’t, but let’s pretend), why did the person tackled have to be a woman? Strategically, what’s the advantage in that versus a man? The answer: absolutely nothing and worse. The hovering over her body while threatening her takes it even further from the corner of potentially funny to utterly unacceptable. 

Because cancel culture is always a risk in the world of creators and brands, brands need to be aware of power dynamics, whether its gender, race, or sexual orientation, among many others.   

The fallout certainly is not what anyone intended or wanted. According to Front Office Sports, three people, including Good Good’s vice president of brand marketing, Jeffrey Lefkovits have been fired. Good Good has lost its sponsorships from Callaway, its PGA Tour event title sponsorship, and its Golf Channel show, Big Break x Good Good.   

Dick’s Sporting Goods and Golf Galaxy also pulled Good Good merch off shelves. This is a critical lesson for all brands to take a step back and ensure the right questions are being asked of a creator’s concept. Not enough questioning strategically could be the difference between an exciting launch and a brand nightmare.

17599: On Adland Analysts Seeing Industry Shifts And Shits.

MediaPost presented more common sense posing as color commentary on the stunning PepsiCo media shift.

A spotlighted analyst provided obvious insights such as:

“…[O]ne can reasonably assume that pricing was a major factor.”

“…[M]arketers are focused on price and performance over transparency and control.” 

“…[T]he loss could have more significant repercussions as it may lead to either more aggressive efforts with non-transparent trading activities, more significant investments in new capabilities or both.”  

“…[M]any hundreds of people at Omnicom [are] likely to be laid off.”

Sorry, but delivering duh as expert opinion warrants layoffs at consultancies and analyst firms.

Analyst Sees Industry Shifts In The Wake Of PepsiCo’s Media Move

By Steve McClellan

Omnicom’s stock remains down about 6% since news broke last week that one of its biggest clients—PepsiCo—abruptly shifted its entire media account to Publicis Groupe without a formal review. Omnicom ran the account for 20-plus years. 

According to the latest figures from COMvergence, Pepsi spent an estimated $1.7 billion on media in 2025. Of that total, Publicis had already been handling about $540 million, mostly attributable to the $500 million of spending in the Asia Pacific region.  

Omnicom had about two thirds of the business, including the $780 million U.S. market. 

PepsiCo has not explained specifically what led to the shift. But according to a rundown by analyst and marketing consultant Madison And Wall, “one can reasonably assume that pricing was a major factor.” 

Which isn’t a big surprise, given M&W’s premise that generally, “marketers are focused on price and performance over transparency and control.” 

According to M&W’s analysis, PepsiCo accounted for about 2.4% of Omnicom’s gross revenue last year—or approximately $400 million, which includes creative, media and other services. The lost media assignment probably accounts for under $100 million in gross revenue “unless principal-based trading was already a significant component of the existing relationship.” 

While a nine-figure revenue loss is clearly a blow, Omnicom’s sheer size mitigates it to some extent. It’s a $26-billion-plus revenue company thanks to its acquisition of IPG last year. 

The PepsiCo media loss could be made up for “in many ways,” per M&W. Strategically, the firm added, “the loss could have more significant repercussions as it may lead to either more aggressive efforts with non-transparent trading activities, more significant investments in new capabilities or both.”  

And to the extent that non-transparent activities helped Publicis offer better pricing to PepsiCo, similar tactics are likely to expand industrywide, M&W surmises.  

The firm also believes there’s a high likelihood that WPP will retain its $1.7 billion Coca-Cola media account, currently in review, and likely win back TCC’s $800 million North America business, which shifted to Publicis in 2025.  

The PepsiCo shift will affect jobs with “many hundreds of people at Omnicom likely to be laid off,” says M&W. The good news: Many of those same people will likely migrate to Publicis, along with the PepsiCo business.

17598: On WPP Production Triple BS.

 

MediaPost reported WPP Production aims to be the go-to vendor—and exclusive vendor—for every client served by the global flaming dumpster.

One controversial point involves the intentional goal to avoid standard triple bidding by offering three bids from enterprises within the WPP Production network.

In other words, the single White operating company theory is bullshit. WPP remains a confederacy of companies competing amongst themselves for billable hours—or outcomes-based remuneration.

Plus, it’s highly unlikely WPP would ever allow one enterprise to low-bid against sister firms. The scenario invites a rigged bidding system, whereby clients might be encouraged to choose a vendor sneakily pre-selected by WPP.

It all inspires a new tagline for WPP Production: From those wonderful folks who gave you a global crime scheme in media.

On a sidenote, the MediaPost report was illustrated with a metaphorical image of a funnel (depicted above). A more appropriate object would’ve been a toilet.

WPP Production, APA Lock Horns Over Triple Bids

By Steve McClellan

WPP Production is urging clients to do all of their production work with the holding company—thereby avoiding outsourcing to independent production houses-- and at least one production trade group says WPP’s stand is essentially an assault on “the free market in commercials production.”  

Leaked internal documents from the holding company’s production arm state that "Our goal is to avoid traditional commercial triple bidding by proving the value of a centralized partnership by positioning WPP Production as the default, trusted partner.” 

Triple bidding is the standard urged by trade groups like Association of Independent Commercial Producers (AICP) in the U.S. and the Advertising Producers Association (APA) in the UK. 

The leaked documents suggest a way that WPP can circumvent the commercial bid process: 

“If a client or creative team requires triple bidding to assess different options, we should evaluate if WPP Production can provide all three bids internally from the same or different markets. We can satisfy this need by offering three different production approaches, locations, and director treatments within the same country or within the region—keeping the work entirely within WPP Production.” 

Steve Davies, CEO of the APA, issued a response that in part reads, “This is a serious threat to the free market in commercials production — and to the independent production, editing and post companies within it — but only if clients don’t see through it. I think they will.”
 
“Professionalism means putting clients’ interests ahead of your own. WPP has effectively announced it’s doing the opposite,” Davies asserted.  
 
The triple bid, he added, is central to the collaborative system between agencies and production companies that enables “great work.” 

WPP Production took issue with the APA’s assessment.  

“Any suggestion that WPP Production misleads clients or undermines fair competition is fundamentally wrong,” the firm responded. “Selectively quoting from a comprehensive document doesn’t fairly reflect what is a completely transparent process. 

“We respect competitive bidding and work with independent production companies, always adhering to client contracts and procurement requirements. We make decisions with clients, helping them find the right solution for each brief and considering WPP capabilities alongside specialist partners.”

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.”

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.”