August 12, 2025|Franchise Frontlines
August 12, 2025 | U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts | Published Opinion
Executive Summary
In a published decision, Judge Patti B. Saris ruled on a series of summary judgment motions in a highly unusual case involving allegations that certain eBay security personnel conducted a months-long harassment campaign against two journalists who operated an online trade publication. The plaintiffs alleged a wide range of intentional torts, including defamation, trespass, false imprisonment, emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. The court granted summary judgment for eBay on several claims—including negligent retention and various defamation theories—but allowed other claims to proceed based on disputed facts related to alleged employee misconduct, online statements, and questions about corporate supervision. The court also granted summary judgment to a security contractor after finding that eBay—not the contractor—exercised day-to-day control over the employee involved. Though the factual allegations in this case are extreme and unlike ordinary commercial disputes, the decision provides instructive lessons for employers about oversight, multi-entity staffing arrangements, and how courts analyze defamation and workplace torts at summary judgment.
Relevant Background
According to the allegations viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the operators of a small online trade publication reported critically on eBay’s leadership and business practices. Throughout 2019, those reports allegedly became a point of frustration inside eBay. The plaintiffs contend that various eBay executives and members of its corporate security personnel reacted with escalating hostility to the publication’s tone, leading to discussions about “dealing with” the coverage. eBay disputes several aspects of these allegations, but the court recounted them as part of the summary judgment context.
The plaintiffs further allege that the head of eBay’s security department and several subordinates devised a plan to intimidate the plaintiffs into reducing or eliminating their reporting. According to the allegations, that plan included anonymous online threats, disturbing deliveries (such as live insects, funeral wreaths, and graphic items), attempts to surveil the plaintiffs’ home, creating Craigslist posts listing the plaintiffs’ address for lewd or unwanted encounters, and physically traveling to the plaintiffs’ neighborhood to monitor their activities. The plaintiffs contend that they became afraid to leave their home except for essential activities and that the security team’s behavior was intended to confine them through fear rather than physical force.
Throughout this period, one of the individuals involved was a contractor supplied by a third-party security firm under a master services agreement that, on paper, placed control with the contractor. In practice, however, the plaintiffs allege that eBay exercised day-to-day supervision. eBay disputes these allegations but acknowledges that its internal investigation ultimately led to the termination of several employees and that multiple individuals later pleaded guilty to related criminal charges.
The plaintiffs brought civil claims against eBay, several former executives, several terminated employees, and the security contractor. The court’s decision addresses which claims could proceed and which must be dismissed as a matter of law.
Decision
Judge Saris issued a detailed ruling granting summary judgment in part and denying it in part. The court first addressed the plaintiffs’ defamation theories, analyzing categories of statements and conduct separately. The court concluded that many of the challenged statements—including heated criticisms of the plaintiff’s reporting calling it “shoddy,” “bush league,” or “drivel”—were non-actionable statements of opinion rather than assertions of fact. Given the slang, profanity, and exaggerated tone of some online statements, the court found that a reasonable reader would not treat them as grounded in verifiable fact. The court also held that signing the plaintiffs up for newsletters or submitting an inquiry to a business on their behalf did not constitute defamation because there was no evidence of publication to third parties or reputational harm.
The court then analyzed two Craigslist postings that used the plaintiffs’ home address. One of the postings, which advertised a party “while the owners are out of town,” was not “of and concerning” the plaintiffs. The other posting, which allegedly provided age range and marital-status information matching the plaintiffs, raised a factual dispute about whether readers would identify the plaintiffs as the subjects. That dispute precluded summary judgment.
On the tort claims, the court concluded that certain allegations—viewed in the plaintiffs’ favor—could support a claim of false imprisonment even though the plaintiffs left their home on multiple occasions. The court emphasized that confinement need not be physical; fear-based coercion or threats may suffice if the plaintiffs submit to that coercion. Because the record reflected alleged stalking, late-night surveillance, and deliveries intended to instill fear, the question of confinement was for a jury.
The court granted summary judgment to eBay on the negligent retention claim because the plaintiffs did not present evidence that eBay knew or should have known of its security director’s alleged unfitness prior to the incidents. The court explained that performance evaluations, workplace feedback, and the absence of prior complaints did not indicate a foreseeable risk of the type of misconduct alleged. The court reached a different conclusion, however, with respect to negligent supervision. The plaintiffs pointed to communications and alleged directives involving senior personnel that, if proven, could demonstrate inadequate oversight of the security department. Because negligent supervision turns on what executives knew, what actions they took, and whether they exercised reasonable oversight under the circumstances, the court found those issues were fact-intensive and inappropriate for resolution at summary judgment.
The security contractor obtained summary judgment on all claims. Even though the contractor issued one of the credit cards used during the events at issue, the court held that eBay—not the contractor—exercised day-to-day control over the contractor’s employee. Applying the borrowed-servant doctrine, the court concluded that eBay directed the employee’s work, controlled assignments and evaluations, and supervised her conduct. The contractor, in contrast, had only administrative responsibilities and lacked the operational control needed to support vicarious liability. The court also granted summary judgment for the contractor on direct negligence claims because no evidence suggested the contractor had notice of any misconduct or a duty that extended to the plaintiffs.
Looking Forward
Although the underlying allegations in this case are extraordinary, the ruling provides practical lessons for employers, including franchisors and multi-unit operators, about managing operational risk in multi-entity environments. First, the decision illustrates how courts differentiate negligent retention from negligent supervision. Employers may not face liability for retaining an employee when no prior misconduct or risk indicators exist, but they may still face exposure if plaintiffs can point to communications, directives, or oversight gaps that create factual questions about executive supervision. Clear documentation, consistent reporting protocols, and transparent escalation channels reduce that risk.
Second, the ruling underscores the importance of understanding how courts evaluate control when determining the liability of contractors and staffing agencies. Contract language stating that a contractor supervises its personnel may be insufficient if, in practice, an employer exercises day-to-day authority. Employers relying on outsourced labor should ensure that their operational practices align with contractual allocations of responsibility.
Third, the court’s defamation analysis serves as a reminder that courts examine online speech contextually. Heated rhetoric, opinions, and slang—particularly on informal platforms—may fall outside defamation law, but employers should still maintain internal guidelines for public communications to protect brand reputation and avoid misinterpretation.
Finally, the decision shows how courts may treat allegations of non-physical confinement in false-imprisonment claims. Even though these allegations are uniquely severe, the ruling highlights how intimidation or surveillance—if it causes individuals to alter their movements out of fear—may be sufficient to reach a jury. Employers responsible for field operations or security personnel should maintain strict oversight and clear limitations on investigatory conduct to avoid similar disputes, even in far less extreme circumstances.
While the events described in this case are not reflective of ordinary corporate behavior, the decision provides a useful roadmap for organizations seeking to strengthen compliance systems, manage supervisory responsibilities, and document control structures within multi-entity environments.
This article is based solely on the opinion of the Court in this matter. The author has not conducted any independent investigation into the facts. For the avoidance of doubt, each statement related to the law and facts in this article is drawn from the Court’s opinion in this case.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter APC and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create, and does not create, an attorney-client relationship or any other legal relationship. No statement herein constitutes legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or interpreted as such. This communication is for general informational purposes only and is not a substitute for legal counsel. Readers should not act or refrain from acting based on any information provided without seeking appropriate legal advice specific to their situation. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
