🔗 Share this article

In a key legal proceeding on Tuesday, a attorney for the voting technology firm Smartmatic contended that top leaders at Fox News, including Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, sanctioned a conscious strategy to adopt baseless assertions of election fraud promoted by Donald Trump.

“Their core viewers, their bread and butter, deserted them,” stated J Erik Connolly, the company's attorney. “So what do they do? They revert to what they know best: they go back to misinformation, pro-Trump propaganda and fear-mongering. The election story and the fraud allegations were the ideal vehicle for them to return to their central messaging.”

A Massive Libel Lawsuit Hangs in the Balance

During courtroom presentations, both parties urged with the New York state supreme court judge David B Cohen to rule on critical elements of Smartmatic's $2.7bn defamation lawsuit before a potential trial next year. The company maintains that Fox executives hatched a plan to “shift” to the former president's allegations to win back disaffected viewers.

The Network's Strong Rebuttal

A lawyer for Fox News, speaking for the network, strongly contested these accusations. “No disinformation campaign was ordered,” he stated. “It is total bunk. It is not supported by the record. It is nonsense. It was fabricated by lawyers on the other side.”

He further asserted that the Murdochs, who held ultimate control over the network, “didn't give anyone any orders to cover Smartmatic or the fraud claims.”

The Central Challenge: Proving “Actual Malice”

To win its case, the company will have to demonstrate that key figures at Fox News were aware the allegations lacked truth but permitted them to be aired anyway. Through legal motions, Smartmatic cited private messages showing personalities like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo voicing skepticism about the claims while also showing an interest to help Trump.

The network's attorney countered that Smartmatic has “grossly exaggerated” its worth and the estimated damages from the coverage. Fox contends its hosts were simply reporting on newsworthy allegations from the president's associates, not endorsing them.

“This suit is not truly about Fox's coverage of the 2020 election,” said Allen. “It concerns Smartmatic's effort to capitalize on remarks made by the president's lawyers to salvage its business viability.”

A Precedent Is Highly Relevant

The arguments closely mirror the prior legal action brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox. In that case, a judge's summary judgment decisions were decisive, finding that Fox's broadcasts were false and defamatory per se.

That ruling was later cited as a key factor in Fox's choice to settle with Dominion for $787.5 million. A former Fox executive remarked that the court's initial decisions had “severely limited” the company's ability to defend itself at trial.

Judge Cohen's Stance

The presiding judge gave no clear hints of his leaning but told Smartmatic's lawyer that establishing “actual malice” for a pre-trial ruling would be a “hard sell.” He stated he planned to review all relevant broadcasts before issuing his rulings.

“I think I have more than enough information, evidence, legal briefs, charts, charts and all I need to reach a verdict,” he told the two sides in the lawsuit.