I'm troubled by this assertion. I know firsthand that ADP will actively fight attempts to integrate with them; their APIs are bad, poorly documented, and have reliability problems. Should somebody attempting to do well for the customer--and, yes, make some money, but it's not like Zenefits is inventing problems to solve--not do well by the customer first and foremost?
Like, from my perspective: forget ADP, forget Zenefits. Is this better for the customer?
I'm sorry, but I've seen numerous comments to the contrary.
Regardless, that they have APIs and documentation, regardless of your opinion of their quality, only supports my assertion.
ADP is not a monopoly.
Zenefits built a model that vaguely value adds onto ADP by using a more modern web stack.
I'm no huge fan of ADP, but they're being generous to even consider themselves to be competing with Zenefits.
Signed,
Someone who worked on ACH for nine years.
ps: I'm pretty sure they're trying to do just that. But you have to consider just how incredibly difficult ACH is - not just from a coding perspective, but from a regulatory perspective. Banking and accounting legal entities need created.
pps: ADP knows good and well that Zenefits is working on their own ACH implementation with their buckets of cash. This is a preemptive strike.
That's not their claim. Their claim is that the reason they were cut off was because of this product launch. They haven't presented any proof of this.
Simple fact is, the claim is coming from a company that has already made it clear they are doing things they should not be doing. They have the burden of proof. They have a mountain to climb.
Edit: As mentioned in the GP comment, this claim is also false:
"Within the same hour they filed suit, an ADP sales rep started selling a brand new Zenefits competitive offering — called “Opum” — to our shared clients."