eBay Seeks Source Disclosure in Newsletter Harassment Lawsuit

eBay Inc, the global e-commerce giant founded in 1995, has initiated legal action to uncover the identities of news sources in a lawsuit stemming from a harassment campaign against newsletter publishers. This move highlights the ongoing repercussions of a disturbing incident that has tarnished the company's reputation.

In a motion filed on September 12, 2024, in a Boston federal court, eBay requested that David and Ina Steiner, publishers of an e-commerce newsletter, disclose their news sources. This request comes as part of eBay's defense strategy against the Steiners' lawsuit, which seeks over $12 million in economic damages.

The lawsuit originates from a shocking series of events that unfolded in 2019. Seven former eBay employees admitted to participating in an extensive harassment campaign targeting the Steiners. The campaign included sending disturbing items to the couple's home in Natick, Massachusetts, and conducting surveillance. These actions were reportedly in response to the newsletter's critical coverage of eBay.

The severity of the harassment is evident in the legal consequences faced by the former employees, with prison sentences reaching up to 57 months. This incident has not only led to criminal proceedings but also sparked a civil lawsuit from the Steiners.

In January 2024, eBay agreed to pay $3 million under a deferred prosecution agreement. The company has expressed its intention to settle the civil lawsuit but is simultaneously working to limit potential damages.

eBay's recent motion argues that access to information about the Steiners' sources is necessary to investigate their economic damages claims. The company contends that the publishers cannot simultaneously invoke reporter's privilege and pursue damages based on alleged loss of sources due to the harassment.

"Plaintiffs are free to preserve the confidentiality of their sources, and they are free to pursue damages based on the alleged loss of those sources as a result of the Natick events. But Plaintiffs are not free to do both."

The e-commerce giant, which operates in over 190 markets worldwide, has proposed a limited disclosure, suggesting that only the identities of sources who ceased collaboration with the Steiners be revealed. To address confidentiality concerns, eBay has offered to restrict this information to its external legal counsel.

This legal maneuver raises important questions about the balance between protecting journalistic sources and a defendant's right to information in civil litigation. It also underscores the far-reaching consequences of corporate misconduct on press freedom and journalistic practices.

In a parallel development, eBay has requested U.S. District Judge Patti Saris to determine whether the Steiners are eligible for punitive damages. This issue has reportedly become a point of contention in ongoing settlement negotiations.

As this legal battle unfolds, it serves as a reminder of the complex interplay between corporate accountability, journalistic integrity, and the protection of press freedoms in the digital age. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for how similar conflicts are addressed in the future.