IANAL but the original plea just says sums in excess of $25k for each count [1]. It seems like the damages are set as a deterrent and not based on the actual va

IANAL but the original plea just says sums in excess of $25k for each count [1]. It seems like the damages are set as a deterrent and not based on the actual value of the defamation [2]: > The Gibsons note that the jury initially awarded them $11,074,500 in compensatory damages and $33,223,500 in punitive damages. They assert that the jury’s punitive damages award represents less than three percent of Oberlin’s total assets. Noting that the purpose of punitive damages is to appropriately punish and deter defendants, the Gibsons argue that a purely mathematical application of the caps thwarts those purposes. They also argue that applying the cap in their case bears no rational connection to the public welfare or a rational connection to Oberlin’s wrongful conduct. They further argue that the punitive damages cap violates their right to a trial by jury. That makes sense to me. If Oberlin just had to pay <$1m then what's stopping them from continuing this behavior in the future. [1] https://via.hypothes.is/https://oberlinreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Common-Pleas_Gibson-Bros.-v-Oberlin-College-Meredith-Raimondo.pdf https://via.hypothes.is/https://oberlinreview.org/wp-content... [2] https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2022/2022-Ohio-1079.pdf https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2022/2022-O...