Triple Damages Case Survives Due to Alleged Lies

A plaintiff sued, saying an online video streaming provider failed to provide monetization services as it was obliged to do under a contract between the parties. He sued for triple damages under Chapter 93A. The claim was allowed to continue.

Why This Is Important…The defendant said this was a plain breach of contract case, not subject to triple damages. The Court found that because of the claim that the defendant intentionally or negligently misrepresented its ability to provide monetization services when the contract was signed, the triple damages claim could continue. This shows the importance of being truthful when negotiating a contract.