Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College was an Ohio legal case concerning libel, tortious interference, and infliction of distress.

[8] On November 9, 2016, underage black Oberlin College student Jonathan Aladin attempted to purchase a bottle of wine using a fake identification card.

[11][12] Store clerk Allyn D. Gibson, a son and grandson of the owners, noticed that the student was concealing two other bottles of wine inside his jacket.

In August 2017, the three students pleaded guilty, stating that they believed that Gibson's actions were justified and were not racially motivated.

[13][16] Their plea deals carried no jail time in exchange for restitution, the public statement, and a promise of future good behavior.

[22] On November 11, 2016, the day after the initial student protest, Oberlin College released a joint statement by President Marvin Krislov and Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo, saying they were "deeply troubled" by the events and would investigate "whether this is a pattern and not an isolated incident" of discrimination.

[23] Raimondo ordered its campus food provider to suspend its purchasing agreement with the bakery, with ratification by Krislov.

[8][22] During a meeting with Gibson's, Oberlin stated that it would consider reinstating the business relationship if the bakery agreed to not bring criminal charges against first-time shoplifters.

[10] According to the civil complaint filed by the bakery, Gibson's was worried that such a policy would cause an increase in future shoplifting.

One assistant dean in attendance of the students' trial texted Raimondo from the courthouse "I hope we rain fire and brimstone on that store.

"[29] An employee for the college's communications department sent an email to her supervisor that she found the protests "very disturbing", and that according to the persons of color friends she spoke to, "this is not a race issue at all".

"A freshman from an East Coast big city might come to Oberlin and find there is little for a social justice warrior to do in a small town like this, so they get frustrated and make issues like this shoplifting thing bigger than it should be, and the school follows along.

It also claimed Oberlin employees distributed boycott flyers and allowed them to be photocopied for free on school machines.

[11] Oberlin responded to the complaint saying Gibson committed "violent physical assault" against Aladin, and that the bakery was "attempting to profit from a divisive and polarizing event".

Gibson's disagreed, pointing to the fact that students removed the Senate Resolution from display at Raimondo's request.

[27] Conor Friedersdorf, a writer for The Atlantic, argued that when Raimondo said she wanted to "unleash the students" at Roger Copeland, it indicated that college administrators at Oberlin "calculatingly wield some control" over protests.

[29] Gibson's tried to introduce expert witness testimony from accountant Richard Maggiore that it would cost the family $13 million to restore its reputation.

[35] In a statement a few days later, President Carmen Twillie Ambar vowed to continue fighting, saying, "This is not the final outcome.

At the end of the month, Judge John Miraldi reduced the total award to $25 million because state law limits punitive damages.

[37] In July 2019, the court ordered Oberlin to pay an additional $6.5 million as reimbursement for Gibson's attorney fees and other legal expenses.

[1] Oberlin released a statement disagreeing with the outcome, asserting that not only did the school not defame the bakery, but it also attempted to repair the damage caused by the protests.

Attorney Lee Plakas, representing the Gibson family in the trial, responded, "The recent efforts of Oberlin College and President Ambar to reframe this as a First Amendment issue, while undermining the jury's decision, should be incredibly concerning to us all.

"[40] Local television station WEWS-TV petitioned Judge Miraldi for more than two years to unseal evidence heard at trial.

[25] Gibson's Bakery filed their own appeal days later asking for review of Ohio's statutory caps on monetary damages.

[47] The court ruled that a reasonable jury would have concluded the Senate Resolution could not have had the effect it did without the assistance from Oberlin, and therefore the college was not entitled to a JNOV.

[47] Oberlin sought review by the Supreme Court of Ohio on May 13, 2022, and later moved to stay enforcement of the $31.3 million award and fees.

"[4] On April 17, 2023, Oberlin College filed suit against its own insurance companies for refusing to cover the judgment paid to Gibson's Bakery.

"[55] According to Daniel McGraw, a reporter who covered the trial for the Washington Examiner, the largest contributing factor to the protests was the election of Donald Trump as President the day before.

[7] In the opinion of attorney and Cornell law professor William A. Jacobson, "On a different campus on a different day, it is unlikely a simple shoplifting case would have gained much attention.

"[5] In his November 2016 letter to faculty and students, Oberlin President Krislov acknowledged the relationship between the protests and the "fears and concerns that many are feeling in response to the outcome of the presidential election".