Uploaded February 2025 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Eichenwald v. Rivello - United States District Court for the District of Maryland
318 F.Supp.3d 766 (2018)
Physical contact is an essential element of a battery claim. In Eichenwald versus Rivello, we explore whether a defendant may make physical contact with a plaintiff via an electronic message.
Kurt Eichenwald, a well known author and journalist, suffered from epilepsy.
Eichenwald wrote about his condition and made it known to the public. During the twenty sixteen presidential election, Eichenwald frequently criticized then candidate Donald Trump.
As a result, Eichenwald was harassed and threatened online.
In one incident, someone sent Eichenwald a tweet that included a video with strobing lights. Strobing lights can trigger epileptic seizures.
Although Eichenwald wasn't harmed, he wrote about the experience in a Newsweek article. Two months later, John Rivello sent Eichenwald a tweet that included and immediately displayed a graphic interchange format or GIF with strobing images.
The GIF also contained a text stating that, quote, you deserve a seizure for your posts, unquote.
The GIF triggered a seizure.
Eichenwald continued to suffer ill effects after the initial seizure passed.
Eichenwald sued Rivello in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland for battery and purposeful infliction of bodily harm. Eichenwald alleged that Rivello sent the GIF knowing that Eichenwald would see it and that the GIF's physical properties would trigger a seizure.
Rivello moved to dismiss Eichenwald's battery and purposeful infliction claims. Rivello argued that Eichenwald couldn't state a claim for battery because Rivello hadn't caused any physical contact with Eichenwald's body.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/eichenwald-v-rivello
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/eichenwald-v-rivello
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Eichenwald v. Rivello - United States District Court for the District of Maryland
318 F.Supp.3d 766 (2018)
Physical contact is an essential element of a battery claim. In Eichenwald versus Rivello, we explore whether a defendant may make physical contact with a plaintiff via an electronic message.
Kurt Eichenwald, a well known author and journalist, suffered from epilepsy.
Eichenwald wrote about his condition and made it known to the public. During the twenty sixteen presidential election, Eichenwald frequently criticized then candidate Donald Trump.
As a result, Eichenwald was harassed and threatened online.
In one incident, someone sent Eichenwald a tweet that included a video with strobing lights. Strobing lights can trigger epileptic seizures.
Although Eichenwald wasn't harmed, he wrote about the experience in a Newsweek article. Two months later, John Rivello sent Eichenwald a tweet that included and immediately displayed a graphic interchange format or GIF with strobing images.
The GIF also contained a text stating that, quote, you deserve a seizure for your posts, unquote.
The GIF triggered a seizure.
Eichenwald continued to suffer ill effects after the initial seizure passed.
Eichenwald sued Rivello in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland for battery and purposeful infliction of bodily harm. Eichenwald alleged that Rivello sent the GIF knowing that Eichenwald would see it and that the GIF's physical properties would trigger a seizure.
Rivello moved to dismiss Eichenwald's battery and purposeful infliction claims. Rivello argued that Eichenwald couldn't state a claim for battery because Rivello hadn't caused any physical contact with Eichenwald's body.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/eichenwald-v-rivello
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/eichenwald-v-rivello
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
