Synergistic calls out Audioholics

dletch2 - Legally, you are not understanding what has occurred. Trying to dissuade a CONSUMER from buying a product is much different legally from contacting a companies’ DEALERS AND DISTRIBUTORS with the INTENT of inflicting economic damage on that company. A similar claim is Intentional Interference with a Business Contract. If Gene has competent legal counsel I'm sure he will find out the difference soon.

sbayne400 posts04-16-2021 12:29pmRight, this is pretty minor as far as the dollar amounts involved. Intentional interference claims are fairly common amongst larger corporations wherein hundreds of millions of dollars are at issue.

These are often contractual interference and when really big, end up as anti-trust.  Things like coerced exclusivity, interfering in supply chains, etc.  Business interference usually comes from a communicated falsehood, i.e. spreading lies about a competitor.  The aspect of privilege could come into play. I.e. was it reasonable to contact these people?  Typically that is a matter of if you are a competitor, you have leeway to divert business your way, but within limits.  We aren't going to solve this here.

Of course the result of the challenge is now two busy threads here including one started by Mr. Denney of SR.

They say any publicity is good publicity as long as you can keep on denying the charges.

There is that karma thing though, but I predict SR will see more sales and more profit now as a result of free publicity here and there will be nothing more in regards to objective measurements provided so no additional costs or overhead incurred. Profits!!!! Smart!

G-d bless free internet sites.

dletch2 - "is it reasonable to contact these people?" or "trying to divert business your way" is not the legal standard or issue here. This is about INTENT to interfere with a business relationship/contract. SR has business relationships/contracts with its dealers and distributors.  

sbayne401 posts04-16-2021 12:50pmdletch2 - Legally, you are not understanding what has occurred. Trying to dissuade a CONSUMER from buying a product is much different legally from contacting a companies’ DEALERS AND DISTRIBUTORS with the INTENT of inflicting economic damage on that company. A similar claim is Intentional Interference with a Business Contract. If Gene has competent legal counsel I'm sure he will find out the difference soon.

No, I am understanding, but you are talking about influencing consumers. That is not what these advocacy groups do. They target major corporations to influence them to end their business relationships with other corporations. I.e. like contacting companies to stop advertising with Fox News for example.


As well, he would have to be able to show damages. He has shot himself in the foot on that one, because he has said repeatedly that all the naysayers don't hurt him one bit, and has put that in writing on social media. Going to be hard to walk that back.


Ted will also not be able to claim his personal Facebook account is independent of his company because of his position and the clear tying of his personal account to his company.  It appears that Ted may have initiated this war as well, which could play into a legal ruling.