Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

  1. Introduction

    A victim may sue a person who published the victim’s private, intimate images without the victim’s consent for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage if the publication of the images resulted in the victim’s loss of employment or interfered with the victim’s ability to earn a living. For example, this tort may apply in a situation where a person purposely sent the images to the victim’s employer with the intention that the victim be fired from his/her job because of the content of the images, and actual harm resulted.

  2. Elements of a Claim

    “In order to prove intentional interference with prospective economic advantage…, the plaintiff must show ‘(1) a prospective contractual relationship between the plaintiff and a third party; (2) knowledge by the defendant of the prospective relationship; (3) intent to harm the plaintiff by preventing the relationship; (4) the absence of privilege or justification by the defendant; and (5) actual harm to the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's conduct.’"1

  3. Cases

    Research is ongoing.

  1. Roche v. Audio Visual Servs. Group, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79256, *13-14 (D. Nev. July 20, 2011)(citing Wichinsky v. Mosa, 847 P.2d 727, 729-30 (Nev. 1993)).