430
« on: March 13, 2012, 11:06:49 PM »
Matt- Very interesting post (as always) - I wish some of my law students could get that "fire in the belly" you have about a legal issue like this; having that passion is often more than half the battle to being a successful lawyer. As for this lawsuit, I think the "interference with contract" claim will obviously come down to whether Reality Steve is accurate when he says on his site the he gets none of his information from contestants or anyone under a confidentiality agreement. That's in the privacy policy on his page and its in a post or two that he made commenting about the lawsuit. In order to win on this claim in California a plaintiff must prove the following five elements: (1) a valid contract existing between plaintiff and another person; (2) defendant had knowledge of the contract and intended to induce a breach thereof; (3) the contract was breached by the other party to the contract; (4) the breach was caused by defendant's wrongful or unjustified conduct; (5) plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the breach. So it looks like there will be factual issues as to whether Steve intended to induce anyone to breach their contract (#2) and whether anyone actually breached their contract (#3).
There would also be a defense if any person who breached the contract said they would have done it anyway and did not do it because of anything Steve did to make them do it (#4).
But I think (#5), damages, can also be a strong factor in favor of Steve as it can be argued that his posts and "spoilers" have built up the following of the show and have not damaged the show. He may also be able to argue that ABC allowed his site to continue because it was helpful to their brand as it drove viewers and commentary. Many of the folks who post on Steve's site say they would not watch these shows if it wasn't for Steve's comments and spoilers. It would be interesting to see if ABC ever had a link to Steve's site on their website or if they ever promoted his site in any way. So I think damages is certainly something his lawyers will address. It appears that he has selected very competent seasoned attorneys so he seems to be in good hands right now.
But where I think you really hit the nail on the head is suggesting that Steve begin to mount a PR campaign for support. He should not only be in a legal defense fund, but maybe an online petition of support. Both could send a message to the plaintiffs that this legal move, even if legally correct, is decidedly unpopular with their audience.
Show Posts