Synergistic calls out Audioholics

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.

sbayne402 posts04-16-2021 1:32pm

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. 

I am going to guess you are not a lawyer?

There are activist groups, and then there are activist groups. To collectively join and agree to refuse to buy a certain product is one thing.
It's in the realm of a boycott.

To actively go beyond those bounds by harassing, intimidating, showing up in a companies lobby, or at the door of a medical provider, or storming the capitol of a state or country, is not being an activist group.

I do believe the law does not differentiate between physically being at one's doorstep and using other nefarious means to harm a business. 

All the best,
Nonoise

dletch2 - You guess wrong on me not being a lawyer. Going back to our discussion: Intentional torts have different damages than say a tort based on negligence. I’m sure Ted has claimed injunctive relief and punitive damages. It was really foolish for Gene to contact dealers and distributors that Ted is in contract with - like I said an hour ago that's when Gene stepped over the line.

You are talking about consumer advocacy. I am talking about groups that target one company to influence them to end their business relationship with another company. It happens all the time. We read about it almost daily.  In those cases, the loss of business is real and very easily measured, yet legal ramifications are rare.