Latest development in Shanus v. REA

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by tbob

IMHO, if REA can truly prove that it did indeed lose money because of this quote on the Net 54 Board, one would have to think it could have a chilling effect on poster commentary. I don't have a dog in this fight but the outcome is going to be very interesting.

Mr. Shanus' quote, in my opinion, did not attribute the later price drop in 19th century sheet music to anything that would be considered wrongdoing by REA, but rather attributed that significant price drop due to the very limited demand of deep-pocketed investors for that type of collectible.

To take that type of thinking to its logical conclusion, this could mean that a price guide like VCP, could also be found liable for documenting that one item by a consignment seller on Ebay sold that item for X and then also documenting a year later an identical item by the same consignment seller sold on Ebay for 0.4X would mean VCP would be libeling both the consignment seller and Ebay since both could claim that information would discourage future consigments of that item and therefore reduce profits, etc. In my opinion a lawsuit like that would be manifestly absurd.

Peter brings up a good point too. REA has a steep mountain to climb proving damages due to Mr Shanus' posting such as finding 19th century sheet music consignees who read that post and decided not to submit items to REA based on that comment alone. Even if they do produce witnesses who will claim that they were discouraged from consigning items to REA based on that post, it still comes down to Mr. Shanus rendering a factual observation that was not a poor reflection upon REA's actions.

Finally, I've since learned by reading REA's counterclaim that this was not just libel, but business libel. That does carry a 2 year statute of limitations, but with it REA also has to prove malice, which should be extremely difficult unless they uncover some evidence that Mr. Shanus knew he intentionally made a false statement. Assuming the statement was substantially true to begin with, and the counterclaim appears to acknowledge the price drop, I don't see this counterclaim going anywhere at all.