Mike Bolsinger allowed 4 runs in a 1/3 of an inning against the Astros on August 4, 2017. It was the last game he would ever pitch in the majors. 

In the fallout from the discovery of the Astros sign stealing scheme, there is data to suggest that the peak of that scheme was this very game - August 4, 2017. A video analysis claims that the Astros tipped off their batters about the pitch that was coming at least 54 times in that game (and, without getting too deep into how they communicated the signs, that's assuming that silence wasn't a tip too). The lawsuit claims that you can hear a trash can bang (the method the Astros used to tip off their batters) on 12 of Bolsinger's 29 pitches in the game.  

It seems obvious to me that there are real world consequences to these types of actions beyond what matters most to me - the Yanks losing in 7 games to the Astros in the 2017 ALCS, winning all 3 at home and losing all 4 in Houston. If certain players gained an advantage from these actions, other players must have been disadvantaged. Maybe they played less - maybe they never made it to the majors at all. But how do you prove what would have happened if the Astros didn't steal signs, or players didn't use performance enhancing drugs, etc.? In my opinion, these are the best facts I have ever seen for establishing that the prohibited act caused direct financial harm to an individual. It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds.