> That's an anticompetitive practice. There's no evidence that Adam and the targeted business are in competition. Having intent to harm is sufficient to be a

> That's an anticompetitive practice. There's no evidence that Adam and the targeted business are in competition. Having intent to harm is sufficient to be a relevant factor. > But you can't sue <the collection of 20,000 twitter users> for collectively boycotting a business for doing a thing they disapprove of. If Sleeping Giants is immune to Tortious Interference claims, so is pretty much everyone else in this context. That's also not an example of cancellation that we've been talking about in this thread, so that's irrelevant.