Get marketing news you’ll actually want to read

Tortious interference with prospective economic advantage is a tort that protects the expectations of ongoing business relationships and opportunities that have not yet resulted in a binding contract. To pursue such a claim, a plaintiff typically must show that a defendant intentionally interfered with a business expectancy, that the interference was improper or wrongful under the circumstances, and that the plaintiff suffered actual economic harm as a result. Courts often emphasize the need for more than mere competition or mischance; there must be deliberate action aimed at disrupting anticipated deals. In practice, successful claims hinge on clear proof of causation, foreseeability of harm, and the absence of legitimate business justification for the interference.

Prospective economic advantage refers to the reasonable likelihood of future profits, sales, or partnerships that a business anticipated from a definite business relationship, prospective contract, or ongoing negotiations. A plaintiff cannot rely on mere hope or general market conditions; there must be a credible, specific expectancy that would have materialized absent the defendant’s conduct. Elements typically require evidence of a concrete plan, identifiable potential deals, and a clear link showing that the defendant’s conduct directly caused the loss. Legal theories may differ by jurisdiction, but the core requirement remains that the interference deprives the plaintiff of a legitimate business opportunity rather than simply engaging in aggressive competitive behavior.

The first step in building a tortious interference claim is to establish that a credible business expectancy existed. This often involves showing prior negotiations, communications demonstrating ongoing interest, or a documented pipeline of potential deals. It is essential to distinguish between general business opportunities and particularized expectancies with a demonstrable likelihood of success. The plaintiff should collect evidence such as emails, meeting notes, recorded conversations, and witness testimony that corroborates the existence of a specific opportunity. Courts look for a direct link between the defendant’s actions and the erosion of that likelihood, demanding a careful chronology that tracks how the relationship was progressing before the interference.

After proving the existence of the expectancy, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant intentionally interfered and that the interference was wrongful under governing law. Wrongfulness can stem from a variety of bases, including improper means, unfair pressure, fraudulent tactics, or the misuse of confidential information. Some jurisdictions require a showing that the interference was independently tortious, while others permit a broader standard that focuses on wrongdoing in pursuing the disrupted opportunity. The plaintiff should also show causation by demonstrating that the interference was a substantial factor in the loss, not merely a contributing cause among many market factors.

Damages in tortious interference claims typically aim to compensate actual economic losses tied to the lost prospective deal. This includes demonstrable revenue declines, potential profits that were foregone, and costs incurred in pursuing the opportunity, such as expenses for legal fees or consultants. Some jurisdictions permit recovery for loss of a fair opportunity where the plaintiff can show a reasonable probability that the deal would have closed. Plaintiffs may also seek non-economic damages for reputational harm in rare circumstances, though most recoveries focus on monetary losses tied to the missed opportunity. A careful damages model helps quantify the impact of the interference on cash flow and long-term business value.

When gathering damages evidence, careful documentation is essential. The plaintiff should compile projections, sales forecasts, witness testimonies about the importance of the opportunity, and third-party analyses that corroborate the expected profitability. Expert testimony is often necessary to translate abstract projections into credible, litigable figures. Courts commonly scrutinize the reliability of forecasts, the reliability of the underlying assumptions, and whether the defendant’s conduct directly caused the reduction in anticipated earnings. A well-supported damages theory not only improves the likelihood of recovery but also helps withstand defense challenges to speculative or hypothetical losses.

Beyond direct damages, plaintiffs may pursue restitutionary relief in some cases, aimed at restoring the plaintiff to the financial position they would have enjoyed absent the interference. This approach focuses less on typical contract damages and more on preventing unjust enrichment. Courts may require a showing of quantum meruit or other equitable adjustments when the defendant’s wrongdoing created an advantage that cannot be easily measured in conventional terms. While restitution is less common in tortious interference claims with prospective economics, it remains a viable option where the defendant’s actions yielded tangible windfalls that belong to the plaintiff.

Another strategic facet is selecting the right venue and ensuring that the claim is timely filed within applicable statutes of limitations. Many jurisdictions have specific timeframes for bringing claims arising from interference with prospective economic advantage, and delaying filing can bar relief even if liability is strong. Early preservation of relevant documents and preservation letters can prevent spoliation disputes that might undermine your case. Additionally, some jurisdictions require a heightened pleading standard, demanding precise allegations about the nature of the interference and the relationship at stake.

Pretrial discovery is a powerful phase for uncovering crucial facts about the relationship, the defendant’s motives, and the economic stakes involved. Depositions, document requests, and selective interrogatories help illuminate the strength of the plaintiff’s expectancy and the direct link to the alleged interference. During discovery, it is important to maintain a coherent narrative that ties each piece of evidence to a specific element of the tort. Protective orders and confidentiality considerations may govern the handling of sensitive business information, requiring careful management to balance disclosure with legitimate privacy interests.

Settlement dynamics often play a significant role in tortious interference litigation. Many cases resolve through mediation or negotiated settlements that preserve the plaintiff’s business interests while avoiding extended litigation. Settlement outcomes can influence public perceptions and the financial health of the involved parties. Attorneys frequently use early settlement leverage, offering structured deals or non-compete concessions to reduce risk. Even when settling, plaintiffs should seek terms that provide meaningful compensation for losses and any ongoing protections against future interference, ensuring a durable remedy that supports business recovery.

Trial preparation requires an integrated theory of liability, damages, and proof. A clear, persuasive theory should connect the defendant’s specific actions to the anticipated deal’s demise, and to the resulting financial impact. Visual aids, such as charts that map the negotiation timeline, can enhance juror comprehension. Jury instructions and verdict forms should be tailored to reflect the precise legal standards governing tortious interference in the relevant jurisdiction. Consistent messaging across witnesses, exhibits, and expert reports helps maintain credibility and reduces the risk of inconsistent or conflicting testimony.

Finally, counsel should anticipate defenses commonly raised by defendants, including arguments that the plaintiff was engaged in speculative or ill-advised negotiations, that market conditions caused the loss, or that the defendant’s actions were legitimate competition. Preparing to rebut these lines of attack involves showcasing the defendant’s intent, proving the wrongful conduct, and demonstrating the unique, non-replicable impact on the plaintiff’s prospective opportunities. A disciplined strategy combines careful fact gathering, expert valuation, and robust advocacy to secure a fair recovery that aligns with the underlying business impact and the plaintiff’s long-term viability.