The problem is not whether "the sending of the bills with the “Thank you for paying” note could... have been understood by any reasonable person to constitute a

The problem is not whether "the sending of the bills with the “Thank you for paying” note could... have been understood by any reasonable person to constitute a claim of any kind." It is that the jury was not properly instructed that they would have to decide this as a matter of fact, and that Glaub's free speech was otherwise protected. It's a subtle procedural issue, but ISTM that the article author has a point.