But Matt used the word "illegal" and made it public. Your analogy doesn't hold much water because there is no financial loss as a result of your example, there is no injury worthy of a lawsuit. It seems to me that if Matt wants to go around publicly declaring that the DTC acted illegally, then he should at least back it up with some evidence and put his money where his mouth is.
Also, do you think the DTC will take kindly to being accused of "illegal" action publicly?
In this case, just because we regard what the DTC did as extraordinarily harmful to the company doesn't mean the best alternative is to rush to court.