Follow-up: Amazon asks court to block former AWS marketing VP from working on Google Cloud Next speeches

Brian Hall was the AWS vice president of product marketing from June 2018 until earlier this year.

A lawsuit filed by Amazon against Brian Hall, former Amazon Web Services vice president of product marketing, alleges that his new role at Google Cloud violates the terms of his non-compete agreement with the Seattle company and risks exposing valuable competitive information to one of its biggest rivals.

In a response filed Monday in King County Superior Court in Seattle, lawyers for Hall say Amazon executives repeatedly led him to believe the company would not enforce the non-competition provision of its “boilerplate” confidentiality agreement, in discussions before and after he signed the contract in June 2018.

It’s the latest in a series of lawsuits filed by Amazon and others in Washington state to enforce non-compete clauses in employment contracts. The controversial agreements have essentially been banned in California, and Washington state last year enacted new provisions meant to limit their applicability.

Amazon is seeking to enforce an 18-month non-compete provision in Hall’s employment contract, asking for an injunction to prevent him from working in cloud product marketing for Google during that period.

Hall is asking the court to rule the noncompete clause “overbroad, unreasonable, and unenforceable,” and to declare that his new role “will not require him to use or disclose any Amazon confidential information.” (See court filings below.)

The dispute underscores the ongoing rivalry between Amazon and Google in the cloud. The search giant opened a new Google Cloud campus on the edge of Amazon’s headquarters in Seattle’s South Lake Union neighborhood, ratcheting up the competition for cloud talent against Amazon, Microsoft and others.

The new Google Cloud campus in Seattle’s South Lake Union neighborhood. (GeekWire Photo / Kurt Schlosser)

However, this suit is notable in part because it involves a marketing leader involved in bringing products to market, not an engineering executive with deep technical knowledge of product development.

Hall “helped develop and knows the entire confidential Amazon cloud product roadmap for 2020-21,” says Amazon in its lawsuit, filed May 18. “Virtually every day, Hall worked with Amazon’s most senior cloud executives to create and execute those plans. As a result, he was entrusted with an unusually broad view into Amazon’s cloud product plans; its priorities; and its competitive strategy.”

According to his response, Hall received reassurances initially from Ariel Kelman, then the AWS vice president of worldwide marketing, who told Hall that the clause was unenforceable, the filing says.

“To Hall, that was understandable: as drafted, the clause sweeps far more broadly than necessary to protect Amazon’s legitimate business interests,” the response says. “Kelman also told Hall that he had never seen Amazon attempt to enforce the clause against a marketing employee, even though several such employees had previously departed for similar positions at Amazon’s rivals. Hall accepted his position with Amazon in reliance on those representations.”

Here is the full text of the clause, included as an exhibit in Amazon’s suit.

Non-Competition. During employment and for 18 months after the Separation Date, Employee will not, directly or indirectly, whether on Employee’s own behalf or on behalf of any other entity (for example, as an employee, agent, partner, or consultant), engage in or support the development, manufacture, marketing, or sale of any product or service that competes or is intended to compete with any product or service sold, offered, or otherwise provided by Amazon (or intended to be sold, offered, or otherwise provided by Amazon in the future) that Employee worked on or supported, or about which Employee obtained or received Confidential Information.

Kelman subsequently joined another AWS rival, Oracle, as chief marketing officer in January of this year.

In their response in court today, Hall’s lawyers said the fact that Amazon did not take similar action against Kelman influenced Hall’s thinking as he considered the Google role. “As Hall’s manager, Kelman was exposed during his employment with Amazon to at least the same (allegedly) confidential information as Hall, and likely more,” the filing says.

One difference, however, is that Hall lives in Washington state and Kelman lives in California, where non-compete agreements have largely proven unenforceable.

GeekWire has contacted Kelman for comment, in addition to Amazon and Google.

Amazon similarly sued Philip Moyer, a former Amazon Web Services sales executive, after he took a job with Google Cloud last year. A judge ultimately agreed to limit some aspects of Moyer’s role at Google for the term of the agreement. However, U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo Martinez called some provisions of the agreement agreement “unreasonable” and took Amazon to task for making “no attempt to tailor its non-compete restrictions to the job it hired Moyer to perform.”

Hall was a longtime Microsoft manager and executive, working at the Redmond company from 1995 to 2017, ultimately leading the company’s Surface business as corporate vice president of devices. He went on to be CEO and COO of smart earbud maker Doppler Labs before joining Amazon in June 2018.

Amazon’s suit says Hall decided to leave after “being passed over for a promotion.” Amazon Web Services named Rachel Thornton to succeed Kelman as vice president of global marketing in January.

Hall’s response says his last day of substantive work at Amazon was Feb. 13, his employment formally ended at the end of March, and he took a senior product marketing job with Google Cloud in early April.

On April 10, after accepting the job, Hall sent a text message to two Amazon human resources executives informing them of his new position, according to the filing: “Just a heads up that I am joining Google cloud running product marketing. Have in place limitations to ensure Amazon information is kept confidential and I am not meeting with customers I worked with from Amazon.”

One of those Amazon HR executives, Paz Patel, responded with this message, according to Hall’s filing: “Congratulations, I had a feeling that you would land there. Very happy to hear this news.”

A new law passed by Washington state last year put restrictions on non-compete agreements, with a series of exceptions, including a provision that allows such agreements to be enforced in cases when an employee earns more than $100,000 a year. Hall earned “well in excess” of that amount in 2019, and was projected to surpass that in his 2020 compensation, as well, Amazon says in its suit.

The suit shows that the legislation “has done nothing to stop this abusive labor practice by the state’s most influential employers,” said Chris DeVore, managing partner of Founders’ Co-op and the former managing director of Techstars Seattle, who has been outspoken against non-compete clauses.

In addition, DeVore noted that Hall’s role as a marketing leader means he is “not someone who personifies the technical trade secrets or IP typically used to justify these claims.”

Here is Amazon’s complaint, followed by Hall’s response.

Amazon v. Brian Hall – Comp… by Todd Bishop on Scribd

Amazon v. Brian Hall – Answ… by Todd Bishop on Scribd

Like what you're reading? Subscribe to GeekWire's free newsletters to catch every headline

Job Listings on GeekWork

Find more jobs on GeekWork. Employers, post a job here.