> For one, the tabloid could argue it was merely trying in good faith to resolve a dispute with Bezos—not attempting to blackmail or extort him. This reasoning

> For one, the tabloid could argue it was merely trying in good faith to resolve a dispute with Bezos—not attempting to blackmail or extort him. This reasoning is why, for example, a lawyer can send someone a letter saying their client will agree to settle a lawsuit if certain terms are met. So IANAL, but my understanding after some research is that this is well-trod territory resolved by deciding whether there was a ‘lack of nexus’. To quote State v. Pauling, which I have not read in full, > Molotov Pauling was convicted of second degree extortion under former RCW 9A.56.130 (1975) for threatening to disseminate and, in actuality, disseminating nude photos of a former girl friend to collect a valid $5,000 small claims court judgment he had against her. The Court of Appeals, stating that the statute lacked a requirement that the threat be wrongful, declared former RCW 9A.56.130 unconstitutionally overbroad because it prohibited threats that constituted protected speech and reversed Pauling's conviction. We hold that a limiting construction is available, requiring that the evidence shows a “lack of nexus” between the threat made and the claim of right. This construction confines the statute's application to only extortionate threats that are inherently wrongful and are not protected speech. > [...] > There are significant differences between, on the one hand, threatened disclosures of such matters as consumer complaints and nonpayment of dues, as to which the threatener has a plausible claim of right, and, on the other hand, threatened disclosures of such matters as sexual indiscretions that have no nexus with any plausible claim of right. > Id. (emphasis added). The court held, “where a threat of harm to a person's reputation seeks money or property to which the threatener does not have, and cannot reasonably believe she has, a claim of right, or where the threat has no nexus to a plausible claim of right, the threat is inherently wrongful․” Id. at 71 (emphasis added). Although a person might have a legal right to collect a judgment, there is no nexus between the exercise of that right and the threat to post embarrassing nude photos on the Internet. On the other hand, a person with a legal right to collect a judgment would have a nexus to a threat to institute garnishment proceedings. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1260888.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1260888.html I found about about this through a good article by the Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/06/it-is-actually-difficult-to-define-blackmail https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... Although I cannot confirm any of this—it's not my field—I can say for certain that I think this should be textbook blackmail, and it's hard to imagine the case actually failing.