August 1, 2026, 2:13 pm | Read time: 2 minutes
A blogger couple from the U.S. is receiving more than $50 million in compensation from eBay. The background involves a months-long intimidation campaign by former employees of the company. The compensation payment stems from a settlement that concluded the civil proceedings. In addition to payments to the victims, nonprofit organizations will also be supported.
Former Employees Sent Cockroaches and Threats
Seven former eBay employees were convicted. They aimed to intimidate Ina and David Steiner from Natick, Massachusetts. The couple runs a newsletter about online commerce.
The anonymously sent packages included live cockroaches, a funeral wreath, and a pig mask smeared with fake blood. The perpetrators also sent a guide on dealing with the death of a partner to the couple’s address. As early as 2024, eBay had paid a $3 million fine in connection with the district attorney’s investigation.
Former E.ON Customers Can Now Claim Refunds
Class Action Against Meta Considers Settlement for Affected Users
Breakdown of the Payment
Of the total sum of more than $50 million, Ina and David Steiner receive $46.15 million. eBay allocates an additional $6 million to support nonprofit organizations.
Additionally, former eBay CEO Devin Wenig pays $2 million to the couple. Court documents reveal that he was dissatisfied with the newsletter’s coverage in 2019 and suggested action against it. However, law enforcement did not initiate criminal proceedings against him. Wenig also stated that he was unaware of the extent of the actions by the security department employees. Furthermore, he donates $1 million to a foundation for freedom of speech.
Also of interest: Goods are delivered damaged–who is responsible?
Case Serves as a Warning for Companies
The case is seen as an example of the consequences of abuse of power in companies. The high settlement amount is intended to make it clear that attempts to intimidate critical voices can have significant consequences.
For bloggers and journalists reporting on companies, the case reaffirms the right to free reporting. This holds true even when companies disagree with the coverage.