Nothing illegal about chess.com causing "real financial damage" when it's their own tournaments, and with that huge document explaining why. They can only get in trouble if they lied.
Doubt anyone is going to uninvite Hans just because Magnus states he will resign. What kind of a threat is that? It's not like chess has much fan revenue, and if it did Magnus resigning would not hurt that. The whole notion is ridiculous, and that's ignoring the liability that makes the scenario unlikely. Chess.com has a wealth of data they can find suspicious patterns in, past admissions of online cheating, and the need to protect and difficulty of protecting against cheating. Live chess has none of that; data is not normalized and must be interpreted at expensive cost, Hans has never admitted to live cheating, and regardless of suspicions in the past, all they need to do in the future is beef up security measures.
I am not a lawyer, so I looked for one. David Franklin is a lawyer and also a chess player. Here are his comments on the case…
Some key take-aways from the interview:
1. The case against Nakamura is virtually nonexistent. He will easily get himself removed from the case.
2. Most of the allegations against Magnus and chess.com are also weak and will likely get dropped.
4. Hans might be able to win the defamation case but it is an “uphill battle.”
5. To win the defamation case he needs to prove that he never cheated over the board, and that is impossible.
6. #4 and #5 are mutually exclusive (my opinion) and he never explained how both can be true.
7. The case could go to trial, but more likely that it will not. It is more likely to end in dismissal, summary judgment, or settlement.
8. Like many federal cases, it could drag out for years, so don’t expect a quick result.
9. Chess as a sport now has a big problem, because there is usually no way to catch a “smart cheater” who only uses his cheating method for one or two moves in an over the board game.
The only thing Franklin says that I question is his claim that Hans can’t prove financial damage. It has already happened! Chess.com has its own upcoming tournament with $1,000,000 in prize money. Hans was eligible to compete prior to getting banned by chess.com. Franklin’s argument is that Hans can still make money from other online sources. That is true, but does not negate the fact that he could make more, if he were not banned from all prize money on chess.com for his entire future career.
The thing that troubles me most about this interview is the conclusion that you can accuse over the board cheating and have no legal liability, because the burden of proof is on alleged to prove that he never cheated. The bottom line seems to be that Magus is guilty of “defamation by implication”, but Hans has no viable means to prove himself innocent and, therefore, can’t prove that Magnus’ cheating allegation is false, and, that is one of the three things plaintiff is required to show in order to win a defamation case. In other defamation cases not related to chess, it may be possible (or even easy) to prove the allegation false (e.g., Kanye West’s bullshit), but not here.
Now that I understand the legal issues better, I feel more sympathy for Hans. Do you?