Get marketing news you’ll actually want to read

Tortious interference with business relations is a claim that hinges on three core elements: a valid business relationship or expectancy, the knowledge of that relationship by the defendant, and intentional acts by the defendant that cause the relationship to falter or end. Courts expect plaintiffs to demonstrate more than a mere unfair competition or a bad business decision; they require concrete, actionable conduct that disrupts or undermines the expected economic relations. Article by article, the doctrine has evolved to protect commercially reasonable expectations rather than mere hopes. Yet the precise configuration of the relationship, the defendant’s intent, and the resulting harm must be proven with specific, admissible evidence.

In practical terms, establishing a prima facie case begins with identifying a concrete relationship that carries economic significance. This could be a contract, a prospective business deal, or a long-standing partnership that a reasonable person would expect to mature. Next, you must show that the defendant knew of this relationship and nonetheless engaged in conduct that was designed to disrupt it. Direct proof of intent is ideal, but courts often allow circumstantial evidence—such as repeated communications with the explicit aim of inducing breach—to satisfy this requirement. Finally, the plaintiff needs to prove damages or a tangible harm resulting from the interference, linking the defendant’s actions to a quantifiable economic loss.

A robust prima facie case starts with a precise articulation of the relationship at stake. Distinguish between a mere social or competitive connection and a business relationship with measurable financial implications. Document dates, negotiations, and milestones that mark the evolution of the relationship from initial interest to a prospective agreement. Preserve communications and letters that indicate a genuine expectation of economic benefit. The evidence should reflect a pattern of conduct, not a single event, to reinforce the predictability of the business relationship and its vulnerability to external disruption.

Equally important is establishing the defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of the relationship. Demonstrate awareness through emails, memos, public statements, or industry chatter that shows the defendant understood the economic value at stake. If the defendant claims ignorance, use circumstantial proof—contextual patterns of behavior, proximity to negotiations, and timing relative to the anticipated deal—to argue that ignorance is implausible. Courts look for a nexus between knowledge and action: did the defendant act with the purpose or reckless disregard necessary to cause harm to the relationship?

The heart of the claim lies in showing that the defendant engaged in intentional acts aimed at disrupting the relationship. This requires more than aggressive competition; it calls for evidence of acts like inducement of a breach, false statements, or coercive pressure that reasonably can be expected to derail negotiations. Your narrative should connect the dots: conduct that targets the relationship, a causal chain leading to a breach or failure to cooperate, and the harm that follows. Consider the timing of each act in relation to the critical negotiation milestones to illustrate a deliberate strategy.

Damages must be rooted in the disruption of the business relationship, not merely in general dissatisfaction with a competitor. Focus on measurable losses—lost profits, opportunity costs, or the value of the anticipated contract. Seek documentation that converts speculative claims into demonstrable figures, such as projected revenue models, customer testimony about lost deals, and expert analyses interpreting the financial impact. If available, compare outcomes with similar relationships that proceeded without interference, highlighting the stochastic disadvantage imposed by the defendant.

Causation in tortious interference claims often hinges on proximate cause and foreseeability. Proximate causation asks whether the defendant’s actions were a direct and natural consequence of the interference, while foreseeability concerns whether the harm was a predictable result of those actions. To satisfy this, assemble a chain of events linking the defendant’s conduct to the actual breach or withdrawal by a third party, and then to the plaintiff’s consequent losses. Demonstrating foreseeability might involve showing the defendant’s awareness that the third party would likely react to the interference in a damaging way.

Courts scrutinize the level of control the defendant exercised over the third party’s decision. If the third party independently elected to breach or withdraw, the liability calculus changes. Conversely, if the defendant’s coercive or deceptive acts were a primary driver of the decision, the case for liability strengthens. Documentation of communications that show pressure, manipulation, or misrepresentation becomes crucial. A coherent narrative that connects the defendant’s role to the third party’s response helps establish proximate causation.

Defendants commonly raise defenses such as lack of intent, absence of a valid business relationship, or justification based on legitimate competitive conduct. They may also argue that the third party’s decision was spontaneous or that the plaintiff’s own actions caused the relationship to deteriorate. The plaintiff, in turn, must rebut these defenses with persuasive evidence of intent and impact. Strategic considerations include the timing of filings, the scope of discovery, and the framing of damages to avoid speculative or punitive claims. Judges tend to favor plaintiffs who demonstrate a coherent theory of liability supported by credible, verifiable records.

Efficient discovery plans are essential to uncover the factual underpinnings of the claim. Seek communications that reveal the defendant’s influence and the relationship’s trajectory, while protecting privileged information. Consider depositions of decision-makers, documents about negotiations, and internal memos that show awareness of the anticipated deal. A well-structured discovery plan can reveal gaps in the defendant’s story and strengthen the causal link between interference and harm. Importantly, preserve all evidence in a secure, auditable chain to withstand motions to exclude or challenge its reliability.

A disciplined, facts-first approach helps courts recognize a credible prima facie case. Begin by mapping the business relationship’s key milestones, expected outcomes, and the protective measures the plaintiff reasonably relied upon. Gather objective data—contracts, emails, pricing forecasts, and performance records—that corroborate the relationship’s commercial value. Then document the defendant’s conduct with precision, including dates, channels, and the nature of the interference. The narrative should demonstrate that the defendant’s actions were not incidental but part of a deliberate strategy to impair the plaintiff’s economic expectations, thereby causing measurable harm.

Finally, translate all materials into a compelling legal argument anchored in established doctrine. Integrate case law precedents that closely resemble the facts at hand, explaining how their outcomes support your position. Craft a cohesive theory of liability that ties together the relationship, the defendant’s knowledge, the intentional acts, and the resulting damages. Present a balanced view by acknowledging plausible defenses while systematically showing why they fail given the evidentiary record. A strong prima facie case rests on clarity, precision, and the ability to demonstrate a plausible, legally cognizable disruption of business relations.