[Someone1234]

> Fraud doesn’t imply malice.

Legally it does. The discussion was about using lawsuits to break Limited Liability. In that context malice is absolutely required to stand a shot at winning.

> They could have jumped the gun on announcing they were preparing to deliver, but doing so would still constitute fraud, especially if this drove an increase in orders.

There's a large problem with this argument, by the time that delivery "promise" had occurred the exchange of money had already happened. Fraud occurs when someone receives something, through deception, that they wouldn't have otherwise received. By the point of this claim the exchange had already taken place, and therefore the claim didn't indice anyone (i.e. they didn't gain additionally from it).

I think it boils down to people conflating "right and wrong" with "fraud." Nobody is saying this business was run well or they didn't do wrong by their consumers. What we're discussing is the legal definition of the term "fraud" and if a hypothetical lawsuit would be winnable.