Re:Blog Anonymously
by joshuamorton on Friday July 10, 2020 @02:49PM
(#23794898)
That's an anticompetitive practice. Which makes sense in the context of a tortious interference claim between two businesses.
But you can't sue <the collection of 20,000 twitter users> for collectively boycotting a business for doing a thing they disapprove of. If Sleeping Giants is immune to Tortious Interference claims, so is pretty much everyone else in this context.
Re:Blog Anonymously
by lliamander on Friday July 10, 2020 @03:14PM
(#23795169)
> That's an anticompetitive practice.
There's no evidence that Adam and the targeted business are in competition. Having intent to harm is sufficient to be a relevant factor.
> But you can't sue <the collection of 20,000 twitter users> for collectively boycotting a business for doing a thing they disapprove of. If Sleeping Giants is immune to Tortious Interference claims, so is pretty much everyone else in this context.
That's also not an example of cancellation that we've been talking about in this thread, so that's irrelevant.
> On the other hand, if Adam means to punish the other organization or put them out of business by taking the advantages of their relationship with Bill away, it is more likely that a tortious interference has occurred.