A judge has sided with Amazon on a preliminary issue in its dispute with a former Amazon Web Services marketing executive, preventing him from reviewing and editing speeches for the Google Cloud Next conference in his new role with the rival technology company.
The ruling this week, granting Amazon’s request for a temporary restraining order against Brian Hall, is but the first round in a larger legal battle. However, it demonstrates the ongoing implications of non-compete agreements in Washington state despite a new law designed to limit the scenarios in which they can be enforced.
Without commenting on the specific ruling, Hall took to Twitter on Thursday night, praising Amazon as “a great org” but speaking out against the company’s legal action against him and concluding with a pointed message: “this is not right and don’t do this to your other employees.”
ok, super sincere tweet here. I REALLY enjoyed AWS and I think the people there are amazing. I feel bad I am picking on soft spots in what is a great org. but I just have to say – I am a principled person who will never violate my NDA in respect and pride. I don't cheat. but…
— Brian Hall (@IsForAt) June 12, 2020
I worked hard and helped my best. I respected the people and tried to learn the culture. I left for good reasons (not just "passed over for promotion" as great AWSers would understand). then was sued, told I will owe all not-frugal legal fees & targeted w/ aspersions…
— Brian Hall (@IsForAt) June 12, 2020
I HATE THIS. But I know: I'm not the first who has been targeted with unfair aggression, but I am privileged in experience & track-record in the industry, so I can at least try to say "this is not right and don't do this to your other employees". that's enough for me to just try.
— Brian Hall (@IsForAt) June 12, 2020
The case has reignited a longstanding debate over Washington state’s approach to non-compete provisions. While Amazon and other tech companies treat the provisions as a necessary safeguard, critics say they put the Seattle region’s tech industry at a disadvantage to California, where the provisions have been struck down by courts.
In its lawsuit, filed May 18 in King County Superior Court, 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 through 2021. A court hearing on Amazon’s larger motion for a preliminary injunction is set for July 31.
While awaiting that hearing, Google had given Hall two assignments, calling it an attempt to keep him occupied without violating the agreement. They were reviewing and making recommendations on the Google Cloud product marketing organizational structure; and editing and summarizing keynote speeches and slides for the upcoming Google Cloud Next conference.
Hall’s work on the organizational review is not in dispute, but Amazon said in a court filing this week that the latter assignment “threatens immediate and irreparable harm to Amazon” due to Hall’s inside knowledge of its secret cloud plans.
“Hall cannot divorce his confidential and proprietary knowledge of AWS cloud offerings from work for Google requiring him to improve Google’s cloud product messaging and target current and prospective customers,” Amazon wrote in its motion for a temporary restraining order. “He knows what product features or messages should be emphasized or de-emphasized concerning Amazon current and future products.”
In a court filing this week, Hall said in response, “Even if it were possible to brainstorm a way to complete these duties and responsibilities in a way that disclosed or made use of Amazon’s confidential information, I have no intention of doing so, or of otherwise violating my post-employment obligations to Amazon.”
The court approved Amazon’s temporary restraining order after a closed virtual hearing on Wednesday, without yet providing an explanation for its ruling.
