Google Exec Who Was Paid a $90M Severance “Ran Sex Ring,” Ex-Wife Claims

Former Google exec ran sex ring, estranged wife claims

Former Google executive Andy Rubin has been accused of running a sex ring, according to a civil complaint filed by his estranged wife.

The Android co-founder reportedly received a $90 million severance from Google in 2014 in the wake of misconduct allegations against him. He was also accused of telling his wife “you are my property, and I can loan you to other people,” according to a report by the New York Times last year.

Now, newly unsealed court documents from a civil complaint filed by his estranged wife Rie Hirabaru Rubin last October accuse him of having several mistresses, at least one of which was “complicit” with him in “running what appeared to be a sex ring”.

“[She] discovered that Rubin had a secret life with multiple women, not just friendships with ex-girlfriends. Rubin had, in his own words, ‘ownership’ relationships with other women, whereby Rubin would pay for their expenses in exchange for offering them to other men. [He] did so that he could watch them engage in various sexual acts, often involving threesomes. One of these women was complicit with Rubin in running what appeared to be a sex ring”.

According to the documents, Rubin and his lawyer Stephen M Peters worked together to defraud Rie of millions by having her sign a bogus prenuptial agreement.

Dailymail.co.uk reports: Rie writes in her complaint that she was also caught off-guard when she learned about her then-husband’s sexual proclivities, discovering emails in which he wrote to at least one woman about ‘owning’ her and then ‘lending’ her out at his will.

She also alleges that among the women with whom Rubin allegedly had extramarital affairs was an individual referred to as ‘M,’ who she claims was complicit in helping the father of her children run a sex ring. 

Rie, who is also seeking a divorce from Rubin in family court, is demanding a jury trial and asking that the prenuptial agreement she signed be voided, thus allowing her to collect on the $350 million her estranged husband earned during their marriage. 

‘This is a family law dispute involving a wife who regrets her decision to execute a prenuptial agreement,’ said an attorney for Rubin. 

‘It is full of false claims and we look forward to telling our side of the story.’

DailyMail.com attempted to reach out to Peters at the number listed for his law firm but it was no longer in service. He has been inactive since 2014 according to the State Bar of California. 

Rie wed Rubin in 2009 after he left his first wife when she became pregnant.

The two were both employees at Google, and Rie retired just prior to her pregnancy.

She signed the premarital agreement just days before their wedding, and soon after gave birth to their first child.

Rubin did not take those vows seriously though according to Rie. 

‘The sham Premarital Agreement having been signed, Rubin’s conduct soon became increasingly flagrant,’ states the court filing. 

‘Rubin continued to view images and to read emails from these other women. Plaintiff is aware of at least five women with whom Rubin had affairs. This conduct is well-documented in emails, texts, videos and photographs shared between Rubin and these women.’

It was not just affairs either, with Rie making a number of allegations about her husband and his involvement in a group where he distributed women who had agreed to be his property.

‘[Rie] discovered that Rubin had a secret life with affairs with multiple women … Rubin had, in his own words, “ownership” relationships with other women, whereby RUBIN would pay for their expenses in exchange for offering them to other men,’ reads the complaint. 

‘As Plaintiff learned, Rubin did this so that he could watch them engage in various sexual acts, often involving threesomes.’ 

The complaint then goes on to detail the alleged sex ring run by Rubin and the aforementioned ‘M.’

‘One of these women (“M”), was complicit with Rubin in running what appeared to be sex ring,’ reads the complaint. 

‘”M” was willing participant, who would agree to perform various sexual acts with multiple men. This would be filmed for the enjoyment of RUBIN and other men. After these orgies, RUBIN would himself have sex with “M” off-camera.’

The filing also includes two emails in which Rubin discusses what it means to be ‘owned,’ and makes a point of telling the unnamed individual that she should be certain about entering into the agreement.

“Being owned is kinda like you are my property and I can loan you to other people, reads one message. 

That same day he wrote another email that read: ”Let me know why you changed your mind and if you understand what being owed really means.’ 

These women were paid hundreds-of-thousands of dollars according to Rie, who was unaware at the time because Rubin had his money sent to different accounts after his 2014 exit from Google.

That came after he was accused of coercing an employee into performing oral sex on him in a hotel room one year prior.

The $90 million severance he received despite that allegation led to a walkout at the company’s headquarters, where some carried signs that read:  ‘Happy to quit for $90 million. No sexual harassment required.’

Just before he parted ways with Google, Rubin also made a change in how he handled his fiances claims Rie.

‘In February 2014, few months before Rubin departed from Google for having an “inappropriate relationship” with a woman who worked under him,” Rubin stopped depositing his Google earnings into the couple’s joint account and instead had the earnings directly deposited into an account solely in RUBIN’s name,’ states the complaint. 

‘For the next year, Rubin would receive income into his individual account, and make selected payments from that account. These included hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to other women.’ 

Rie is seeking relief from Rubin, Peters, Peters; law firm and any unnamed Does who may have aided either her husband or the lawyer.

She claims in her filing that Rubin set her up with Peters when he gave her the agreement just weeks before she gave birth, but at no point mentioned he had represented her husband-to-be in his previous divorce. 

The complaint lists eight causes of action in total, including: fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, professional negligence and declaratory and injunctive relief to set aside premarital agreement.

She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages for each cause, along with pre- and post-judgment interest, and any reliefs that the court deems just and proper.

Rie also asks that the premarital agreement be declared ‘invalid and unforceable’ and for an order enjoining the new agreement.