TXO is one of several cases I'm referring to where the 500x number came into question.
But the other way in which TXO doesn't paint the complete picture is that it is not a defamation case, and in the US we much more cautious about preemptively punishing speech (and about discouraging speech with risk of liability) than we are about other types of torts.
The ratio here isn't just large, it's completely off the charts, and an off-the-charts ratio on a speech case isn't going to fly, nor do I believe it should.
> I know of no evidence in favor of the first point.
Do you know of any case where a ratio higher than 10000x was ever tested? Because there have been several that were tossed out as disproportionate at a much lower ratio than that.
> Your second point is patently false because TXO is about speech - it's literally a disparagement case.
It was a case of negotiating in bad faith by slandering a title, and the damages were awarded on the basis that TXO had engaged in similar nefarious behavior across the country while negotiating other deals. That's substantially different in character from a series of unsavory opinion pieces, and within the realm of types of speech that we typically do regulate—it's more akin to fraud than it is to personal slander/libel.
From the ruling:
> [T]he record shows that this was not an isolated incident on TXO’s part—a mere excess of zeal by poorly supervised, low level employees—but rather part of a pattern and practice by TXO to defraud and coerce those in positions of unequal bargaining power.
But the other way in which TXO doesn't paint the complete picture is that it is not a defamation case, and in the US we much more cautious about preemptively punishing speech (and about discouraging speech with risk of liability) than we are about other types of torts.
The ratio here isn't just large, it's completely off the charts, and an off-the-charts ratio on a speech case isn't going to fly, nor do I believe it should.