On May 20, 2025, the First Department issued a decision in Beast Invs., LLC v. Celebrity Virtual Dining, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op. 03012, holding that a tortious interference with prospective business advantage claim failed because it inadequately alleged the defendant’s bad conduct, explaining:
The sixth counterclaim for tortious interference with prospective business advantage was also correctly dismissed because such a claim requires either that Donaldson’s conduct amounted to a crime or an independent tort, or that he acted with the sole purpose of malice. Virtual Dining does not allege that Donaldson committed a crime. Nor did he commit the tort of defamation, as his tweets were opinions. Virtual Dining also does not allege that Donaldson acted for the sole purpose of inflicting intentional harm on it. Rather, it alleges, in an effort to pressure Virtual Dining into transferring to him part of its interests in MrBeast Burger, Donaldson bullied Virtual Dining on social media.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).