eBay Could Face Liability for False Imprisonment, Harassment of Massachusetts Couple, Judge Rules
By Legal Affairs Correspondent
Published August 15, 2025
Boston, MA – A federal judge in Massachusetts has ruled that eBay Inc. and several former executives must face a civil trial for their alleged roles in a 2019 harassment campaign targeting Natick couple David and Ina Steiner, who run the trade publication EcommerceBytes. U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, in a decision issued on August 12, 2025, denied eBay’s motions for summary judgment on key claims, including false imprisonment and ratification, allowing the Steiners to pursue damages potentially exceeding $500 million. The ruling, detailed in Steiner v. eBay Inc. et al. (No. 1:21-cv-11181), marks a significant step toward holding the e-commerce giant accountable for what prosecutors have called an “extraordinary and troubling” corporate cyberstalking scheme.
The Harassment Campaign
The Steiners, who publish critical coverage of eBay through EcommerceBytes, became targets of a months-long intimidation campaign in August 2019, allegedly orchestrated by eBay’s security team in retaliation for their reporting. Court records reveal a chilling array of tactics, including:
- Sending threatening packages to the Steiners’ home, such as live spiders, a bloody pig mask, a fetal pig, and a funeral wreath.
- Posting Craigslist ads impersonating the couple to solicit strangers for sexual encounters at their residence.
- Tailing the Steiners by car and on foot, installing a GPS tracker on their vehicle, and vandalizing their property.
- Sending anonymous threatening messages via Twitter and signing the couple up for unwanted email subscriptions.
The campaign, described by prosecutors as an attempt to silence the Steiners’ critiques, involved seven eBay security staffers who have since pleaded guilty to criminal charges, receiving sentences ranging from probation to nearly five years in prison. eBay itself paid a $3 million criminal penalty in January 2024 under a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, admitting to six felony offenses, including stalking and obstruction of justice.
The Civil Lawsuit and Judge’s Ruling
The Steiners’ lawsuit names eBay, former CEO Devin Wenig, former Communications Chief Steve Wymer, former SVP of Global Operations Wendy Jones, and seven convicted security employees, alleging 12 counts, including intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, defamation, false imprisonment, and violations of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act. The couple seeks $12 million in economic damages for harm to their business, claiming advertisers and sources distanced themselves from EcommerceBytes due to the scandal, plus punitive damages potentially totaling $700 million.
On November 1, 2024, Judge Saris issued a mixed ruling on punitive damages, allowing the Steiners to pursue them under California law for intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy, as much of the misconduct originated from eBay’s San Jose headquarters. However, claims for trespass, false imprisonment, defamation, and Massachusetts Civil Rights Act violations were governed by Massachusetts law, which bars punitive damages absent statutory authorization.
In her August 12, 2025, ruling, Saris rejected eBay’s bid to dismiss the false imprisonment and ratification claims, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to decide whether the company and its executives are liable. The false imprisonment claim centers on the Steiners’ allegations that relentless harassment, including incessant packages and physical surveillance, confined them to their home out of fear for their safety. The ratification claim asserts that senior executives, including Wenig, who allegedly texted “It’s time to take her down” about Ina Steiner, approved or failed to stop the campaign.
Saris noted the “logistical challenges” of a trial with multiple defendants, suggesting mediation or splitting the case into separate trials for eBay, its C-suite executives, and the convicted employees. Mediation efforts have so far failed, with eBay citing the $700 million damages figure as a sticking point.
Implications and Reactions
The ruling is a significant victory for the Steiners, whose attorney, Andrew Finkelstein of Finkelstein & Partners LLP, called it a “crucial step toward accountability.” He told Law360 that allowing punitive damages for certain claims ensures “a jury can send a message” to deter corporate misconduct. The Steiners’ pursuit of $200 million each from eBay and ringleader Jim Baugh, plus millions from other defendants, underscores the case’s high stakes.
eBay, represented by Sidley Austin LLP, maintains that the campaign was the work of “rogue employees” and denies corporate liability. The company did not comment on the ruling but has previously emphasized its $3 million penalty and enhanced compliance measures under a three-year DOJ monitor.
Legal experts see the case as a landmark for corporate accountability. “This is a wake-up call for companies that think they can distance themselves from employee misconduct,” said Professor David Engstrom of Stanford Law. The ruling also highlights tensions between California and Massachusetts law, with California’s punitive damages framework amplifying potential financial exposure for eBay.
Looking Ahead
The trial, originally set for March 2025, has been delayed pending resolution of remaining summary judgment motions from individual defendants. The Steiners are pushing for a consolidated trial to present a unified narrative, while eBay seeks to limit its scope. Judge Saris’s urging of mediation suggests a possible settlement, but the parties’ disagreement over damages makes this uncertain.
The case has broader implications for corporate governance, particularly in how companies handle internal misconduct and First Amendment-protected criticism. As the Steiners prepare for trial, their story—bolstered by guilty pleas and DOJ admissions—continues to resonate, with X posts from @BostonGlobe and @lawdotcom noting public support for their fight against “corporate terror.” The outcome could redefine the boundaries of corporate liability for employee-driven harassment campaigns.
Sources: Steiner v. eBay Inc. et al., No. 1:21-cv-11181 (D. Mass.), Law360, Bloomberg Law, Justice.gov, ValueAddedResource.net, X Posts by @BostonGlobe, @lawdotcom, @BostonJustice