Skip to main content
NOPE
Medium reported severity Lawsuit Dismissed

Moscow court upholds a sales director's dismissal for disclosing trade secrets, including uploading company reports to DeepSeek, and rejects her severance claim

A Moscow district court upheld an engineering company's dismissal of its head of sales for disclosing trade secrets, according to RAPSI and Pravo.ru reports of 27 July 2026. The grounds included uploading protected internal reports to the Chinese chatbot DeepSeek, forwarding company documents to her personal email and disclosing strategic information to a supplier. The court held that uploading trade secrets to DeepSeek is in itself a disclosure. She had sought a dismissal by mutual agreement and a contractual severance payment of 5 million roubles. The court rejected both, annulled a separate reprimand and awarded her compensation for moral harm. The decision was not yet final.

AI system
DeepSeek
Occurred
2025
Reported
27 July 2026
Event location
Russia
What the AI did
Relation unknown
Reported harm
Professional HarmFinancial Loss
Whose AI use
Their own AI use
Setting
Work · Justice
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 1 underlying account
6 claims: 6 reported. 3 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: DeepSeek, the chatbot to which, per the court decision as reported, she uploaded internal company reports

What Happened

The dismissal. According to the court decision as reported by RAPSI, the head of sales of a Moscow engineering company was dismissed for disclosing trade secrets. She had worked there for about half a year from April 2025 on a monthly salary of over 800,000 roubles. She was disciplined in September 2025 and then dismissed (Meduza; HashTelegraph).

The grounds. The decision records that she forwarded tender documents, a file of staff salaries and company correspondence to her personal email. It also records that she uploaded protected reports from an internal system to DeepSeek; according to the company, they held data on deals, incoming payments and financial figures by department. A further ground was disclosing strategic information to a supplier (Pravo.ru). The court held that uploading trade secrets or confidential information to DeepSeek is in itself a disclosure (RAPSI).

The claim. She asked the court to change the dismissal to one by mutual agreement and to award a contractual 5 million rouble severance payment. The court rejected this because the payment applied only to termination by agreement or redundancy. It annulled a separate reprimand and awarded compensation for moral harm (Pravo.ru). She had argued that the company had not proved any disclosure; the employer also cited a failure to meet sales plans and offered a settlement of more than 400,000 roubles, which she refused (Meduza; HashTelegraph). The decision was not final on 27 July 2026.

Reported harm

A sales director was dismissed for disclosing trade secrets, including by uploading company reports to DeepSeek; a Moscow court upheld the dismissal and rejected her claim to a 5 million rouble severance payment (RAPSI; Pravo.ru).

Outcome

Unknown

The Babushkinsky District Court of Moscow rejected her claims in case No. 02-1545/2026 to change the dismissal wording and to receive the 5 million rouble severance payment. It annulled a separate reprimand and awarded compensation for moral harm (Pravo.ru). On 27 July 2026 the decision had not entered into force and could be appealed (HashTelegraph); no appeal is reported.

What remains unknown

  • The exact date of the dismissal; the bodies give only the start of employment (18 April 2025), its length (about half a year) and a disciplinary action in September 2025.
  • Whether the decision was appealed or has entered into force.
  • Whether any company policy expressly prohibited uploading data to AI services.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The harm is the employer's dismissal of an employee in response to her use of an AI service, upheld by a court. According to the decision as reported by RAPSI, she uploaded protected company reports to DeepSeek, and the court held that this upload was in itself a disclosure of trade secrets. The DeepSeek upload was one of several grounds, alongside forwarding documents to her personal email and disclosing strategic information to a supplier (Pravo.ru). No source reports any DeepSeek output about her, so the relation is unknown under the consequential-response exemption.

6 claims: 6 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported A Moscow district court (the Babushkinsky District Court) upheld an engineering company's dismissal of its head of sales for disclosing trade secrets. The grounds it accepted included uploading protected internal reports to DeepSeek, forwarding company documents and correspondence to her personal email, and disclosing strategic information to a supplier.

Causal attribution. Court decision as reported by RAPSI and Pravo.ru; the DeepSeek upload is one of several grounds.

  • rapsinews.ru(opens in new tab) supports · Russian
    'Бабушкинский суд Москвы признал законным увольнение топ-менеджера инженерной компании за загрузку сведений, составляющих коммерческую тайну, в нейросеть DeepSeek, сказано в решении суда, с которым ознакомилось РАПСИ.'; 'В решении суда указано, что менеджер направляла на свою личную почту документы об участии в тендере, файл с данными о зарплатах сотрудников, ставила ее в скрытую копию и пересылала корпоративную переписку.'
  • pravo.ru(opens in new tab) supports · Russian
    'путем выгрузки внутренних отчетов в нейросеть DeepSeek (дело № 02-1545/2026)'; 'Дополнительным основанием для увольнения стало разглашение стратегической информации поставщику'
Reported The court held that uploading trade secrets or confidential information to DeepSeek is in itself a disclosure of that information. According to the company, the uploaded reports held data on deals, incoming payments and the company's financial and statistical figures by department.

Causal attribution. The court's reasoning as quoted by RAPSI; the description of the reports is the company's.

  • rapsinews.ru(opens in new tab) supports · Russian
    '«Выгрузка сведений, составляющих коммерческую тайну и (или) являющихся конфиденциальной информацией, в систему искусственного интеллекта Deepseek является разглашением таких сведений», — указал суд и отклонил иск.'; 'По данным компании, в нейросеть она загрузила отчеты, которые содержат сведения о сделках, поступлении денежных средств, статистические и финансовые данные компании с разбивками по отделам.'
  • hashtelegraph.com(opens in new tab) supports · Russian
    'Суд подчеркнул: сама по себе загрузка коммерческой тайны или конфиденциальной информации в систему искусственного интеллекта Deepseek уже является разглашением таких сведений.'
Reported She asked the court to change the dismissal to one by mutual agreement and to award a contractual severance payment of 5 million roubles. The court rejected those claims, because the payment applied only to termination by agreement or redundancy; it annulled a separate unfounded reprimand and awarded her compensation for moral harm.

Causal attribution. Court decision as reported.

  • rapsinews.ru(opens in new tab) supports · Russian
    'Она обратилась в суд с требованием изменить формулировку увольнения и выплатить предусмотренный договором «золотой парашют» 5 миллионов рублей.'
  • pravo.ru(opens in new tab) supports · Russian
    'Требование о выплате 5 млн руб. отклонили, так как суд указал, что выплата «золотого парашюта» предусматривалась исключительно при расторжении договора по соглашению сторон или при сокращении штата, а не при увольнении за виновные действия.'; 'суд отменил необоснованное дисциплинарное взыскание в виде замечания и присудил'; 'компенсации морального вреда'
Reported She had worked for the company since April 2025, for about half a year, on a monthly salary of over 800,000 roubles. She was disciplined in September 2025 and then dismissed for disclosing legally protected secrets.

Causal attribution. Case materials as reported; the exact dismissal date is not given.

  • meduza.io(opens in new tab) supports · Russian
    'работала с апреля 2025-го.'; 'привлекла сотрудницу к дисциплинарной ответственности, а затем уволила за разглашение охраняемой законом тайны.'
  • hashtelegraph.com(opens in new tab) supports · Russian
    'работала в компании с 18 апреля 2025 года с окладом свыше 800 000 рублей в месяц'; 'В сентябре 2025 года её уже привлекали к дисциплинарной ответственности, после чего последовало увольнение за разглашение охраняемой законом тайны.'
  • rapsinews.ru(opens in new tab) supports · Russian
    'истец около полугода работала руководителем отдела продаж с окладом 800 тысяч рублей, уволили ее за разглашение коммерческой тайны.'
Reported As reported on 27 July 2026, the decision in case No. 02-1545/2026 had not entered into force and could be appealed.

Causal attribution. HashTelegraph's report of the decision's status.

  • hashtelegraph.com(opens in new tab) supports · Russian
    'Решение суда по делу № 02-1545/2026 пока не вступило в законную силу и может быть обжаловано.'
Reported In court she argued that the company had not proved any disclosure of trade secrets and that the grounds for dismissal were unlawful. The employer also cited a systematic failure to meet sales plans, and during the proceedings offered a settlement of more than 400,000 roubles, which she refused.

Causal attribution. The parties' positions in the case as reported by Meduza and HashTelegraph; recorded as counterevidence and context.

  • meduza.io(opens in new tab) supports · Russian
    'Она настаивала, что компания не представила доказательств разглашения коммерческой тайны, а основания для увольнения были незаконными.'
  • hashtelegraph.com(opens in new tab) supports · Russian
    'Работодатель также ссылался на систематическое невыполнение планов продаж.'; 'В ходе процесса ответчик предлагал мировое соглашение с выплатой более 400 000 рублей — половины оклада, — но истица от него отказалась.'

Sources

4 sources inspected, from 1 underlying account. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in Russian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-19 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. RAPSI (Russian legal and judicial information agency), 27 July 2026; HTTP 200, full text read. RAPSI says it saw the court's decision; the decision itself was not inspected. Applies to s1.

Read in Russian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-19 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Pravo.ru, 27 July 2026; HTTP 200, full text read; gives the case number. The body names the plaintiff; this record does not. Applies to s2.

Read in Russian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-19 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Meduza, 27 July 2026; HTTP 200, full text read; cites the claim materials for the employment and disciplinary dates. Names the plaintiff; this record does not. Applies to s3.

Read in Russian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-19 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. HashTelegraph, 27 July 2026; HTTP 200, full text read; relays the same decision with the start date and the appeal status. Names the plaintiff; this record does not. Applies to s4.

Event countries: Russia. Affected-person countries: Russia. Court countries: Russia.

The company is a Moscow engineering company and the case was decided by the Babushkinsky District Court of Moscow (RAPSI; Meduza). She worked for that Moscow company (Meduza); where she lives is not stated.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-19: Published as a consequential-response case: a court-upheld dismissal and loss of a severance claim in which the court treated an employee's uploads to DeepSeek as disclosure of trade secrets. The account is the court decision as reported by RAPSI and Pravo.ru. The employee is not named.

People described

The company's head of sales, an adult employee in Moscow (named in some sources; not named here)

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed

One person: the dismissed head of sales, who used DeepSeek herself (RAPSI; Pravo.ru). Exact 1.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#deepseek#workplace#dismissal#trade-secrets#labour-dispute#russia#moscow

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Moscow court upholds a sales director's dismissal for disclosing trade secrets, including uploading company reports to DeepSeek, and rejects her severance claim. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2025-moscow-court-upholds-sales-directors-dismissal-over-trade-secrets-uploaded-to-deepseek

BibTeX

@misc{2025_moscow_court_upholds_sales_directors_dismissal_over_trade_secrets_uploaded_to_deepseek,
  title = {Moscow court upholds a sales director's dismissal for disclosing trade secrets, including uploading company reports to DeepSeek, and rejects her severance claim},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2025-moscow-court-upholds-sales-directors-dismissal-over-trade-secrets-uploaded-to-deepseek}
}

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents