Espionage Allegations Shake 401(k) Unicorns: Human Interest vs. Guideline in Bitter Court Battle
A Utah federal lawsuit accuses former employees and rival executives of a brazen data-theft scheme — and raises stakes in the escalating HR-software wars.
The headlines — what happened
Human Interest filed suit in Utah federal court alleging that two inside sales reps, Brian and Brandon Sterri, systematically stole sensitive company data and funneled it to competitor Guideline, where their brother Eirik worked. The complaint includes explicit texts, screenshots requests, and alleged email transfers to personal accounts.
- Allegation: systematic exfiltration of leads, customer lists, and strategy documents.
- Evidence cited: text messages, Slack requests, downloaded files emailed to personal Gmail accounts.
- Accused recipients: Guideline executives, allegedly including CEO Kevin Busque and CFO Steven Wu.
The Sterri messages — audacity on display
The complaint quotes messages that read like a taunt: “We are going to tear apart HI. It’s going to be the easiest thing to do.” The brothers allegedly called their plan the “Sterri Takeover.”
- Requests for crown-jewel data: Brian asked a colleague for a screenshot of “total lead flow,” described in the suit as the company’s most sensitive metric.
- Recruitment promises: the complaint says Brian offered jobs at Guideline in exchange for internal data.
- Attempts to circumvent detection: files allegedly emailed from work accounts to personal addresses and personal Gmail logged into on company laptops.
Alleged coordination — from inside sales to the C-suite
Human Interest argues this wasn’t rogue behavior but an orchestrated operation that reached Guideline’s leadership.
- Texted confirmations: Eirik allegedly told his brothers that Guideline staff “have your backs.”
- Claim of executive-level receipt: Human Interest alleges the stolen info went “directly” to top Guideline management.
- Guideline response: the company said the allegations are “false and without merit” and will “vigorously defend” itself.
The extortion accusation — deal-making and threats
The lawsuit alleges that, after cease-and-desist letters, Guideline pressured Human Interest during its pending acquisition by Gusto.
- Alleged ultimatum: Guideline’s CFO supposedly told Human Interest to drop the lawsuit or risk scuttling the Gusto acquisition.
- Gusto’s statement: the payroll firm said the deal “has not yet closed,” that Guideline and Gusto are separate, and that Gusto is not a party to the suit.
Context — HR software as a battlefield
This fight isn’t isolated. The HR and 401(k) software sectors have turned into a contested theater, with litigation between Rippling and Deel earlier this year featuring similar espionage-style allegations.
- Why it matters: payroll and 401(k) data are commercially valuable and lock in customer relationships.
- Legal gravity: the complaint invokes severe claims (including conduct that reads like racketeering), raising the potential for heavy legal consequences.
Business stakes — valuations and investor backing
Both firms are venture-backed unicorns fighting for market share in a commoditized but lucrative space.
- Human Interest: raised $700M+, valued at $1.4B; investors include SoftBank, Baillie Gifford, TPG.
- Guideline: raised $340M, hit $1.2B valuation in 2021; backers include General Atlantic, Felicis.
- Deal in play: Guideline reportedly set to be acquired by Gusto for roughly $600M.
The human element — trust, teams, and reputations
Beyond money and market share, the case exposes how fragile internal trust is and how personal relationships can become vectors for corporate harm.
- Employee pressure points: promises of jobs and family ties allegedly helped coerce insiders.
- Cultural fallout: emergency leadership meetings and confidentiality reminders are cited in the complaint — and mocked in internal texts, per the filing.
What’s next — litigation and industry fallout
The suit is recent, and both legal and industry outcomes remain uncertain.
- Immediate effects: potential diversion of executive time, reputational damage, and disrupted deals.
- Longer-term: the case could spur stricter internal controls, more aggressive NDAs, or regulatory scrutiny across HR-tech providers.
Key takeaways
- These are serious allegations alleging coordinated data theft, executive involvement, and alleged coercion tied to an acquisition.
- The dispute sits within a larger pattern of cutthroat competition in HR- and payroll-adjacent tech.
- Investors and customers will watch closely; the case could reshape trust and compliance practices across the sector.
