Victims of eBay harassment campaign can seek punitive damages, US judge rules
By Nate Raymond
Nov 1 (Reuters) -A Massachusetts couple subjected by eBay employees to a bizarre harassment campaign after an online newsletter they published drew the ire of executives can seek punitive damages on some of their claims against the company, though not some of the "most distressing" ones, a federal judge ruled on Friday.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Patti Saris in Boston sought to clear up a legal question that the e-commerce company's lawyers said had been a sticking point in talks to settle the lawsuit by David and Ina Steiner, who it said were already seeking more than $12 million in economic damages.
Lawyers for the Steiners and eBay did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Seven former eBay workers have pleaded guilty and received sentences of as high as 57 months in prison for their roles in an extensive campaign that took place in 2019 that involved sending the Steiners cockroaches, fly larvae and a bloody Halloween pig mask, and surveilling their home in Natick, Massachusetts.
Prosecutors say the employees did so in order to silence them after senior executives deemed the Steiners' newsletter, EcommerceBytes, critical of eBay.
The San Jose, California-based company agreed in January to pay $3 million under a deferred prosecution agreement. But the company and some ex-eBay executives and employees remain defendants in a separate civil lawsuit by the Steiners.
During a hearing in July, a lawyer for eBay, Jack Pirozzolo of Sidley Austin, had told Saris that the company was seeking to settle the case but that it had become clear during discussions that they needed guidance from the judge on whether Steiners were entitled to seek punitive damages.
Under Massachusetts law, the Steiners would not be entitled to seek punitive damages against eBay. But the Steiners' lawyers, led by Andrew Finkelstein of Finkelstein & Partners, argued California law should apply to their damages claim.
Saris on Friday concluded the "most distressing conduct" underlying the Steiners' claims of trespass, false imprisonment, and Massachusetts Civil Rights Act violations occurred in Massachusetts, foreclosing the availability of punitive damages.
Those claims concerned actions by eBay employees who traveled to Natick to engage in surveillance of the couple and vandalism of their property, which the Steiners said exacerbated their fear for personal safety.
But Saris said the couple's other claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy covered not just the stalking and surveillance but also a broader range of conduct that was carried out online from eBay's California headquarters.
"California’s countervailing interest in deterring such malicious and extreme conduct by its corporate domiciles prevails since the most significant of the unlawful conduct took place within its borders," Saris wrote.
The case is Steiner v. eBay Inc, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, No. 21-cv-11181.
For the Steiners: Andrew Finkelstein of Finkelstein & Partners
For eBay: Jack Pirozzolo of Sidley Austin
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
