EC-Council & AKQA in contractual dispute over payment and mandate terms

AKQA has stated that the dispute centres on unpaid invoices and the interpretation of a performance-linked contract, and maintains that it has fulfilled all contractual obligations under the mandate

by e4m Staff
Published: Mar 30, 2026 9:05 PM | 2 min read

Cybersecurity certification company EC-Council has initiated legal proceedings against AKQA in relation to a commercial dispute over a 2024 marketing and advertising mandate. AKQA stated that the dispute primarily relates to unpaid invoices for services delivered and the interpretation of a performance-linked contract.

AKQA further stated that many of the issues now being raised were not flagged during the course of the engagement and only surfaced after legal proceedings were initiated. The agency added that any delays or changes to delivery timelines were largely attributable to client-side dependencies and evolving requirements.

According to the complaint, EC-Council has alleged that certain revenue expectations were not met during the engagement. However, AKQA disputes this characterisation and maintains that there was no contractual obligation to guarantee revenue outcomes under the agreement.

AKQA disputes the allegations and states that the dispute centres on unpaid invoices for services delivered, which are understood to be approximately USD 2.5 million. AKQA further noted that EC-Council initiated legal proceedings after the agency began pursuing recovery of these outstanding fees. The agency maintains that all contractual obligations under the mandate were fulfilled.

In its defence, AKQA has rejected the characterisation of the dispute as a breach of contract and stated that the matter centres on the legal interpretation of a performance-linked agreement. The agency maintains that any revenue figures referenced during the engagement were indicative estimates rather than guaranteed commitments. AKQA also stated that the structure and interpretation of the contract are key issues now being determined through legal proceedings.

The agency said it has been seeking to resolve the matter for over a year and will robustly defend the proceedings, expressing confidence that the claims against it will not be proven. The matter remains before the Singapore courts and is subject to legal determination.