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 Compliant 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."