🔗 Share this article

During a key legal proceeding on Tuesday, a attorney for the voting technology firm Smartmatic argued that senior executives at Fox News, specifically Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, authorized a deliberate plan to embrace baseless claims of election fraud championed by Donald Trump.

“Their core viewers, their bread and butter, deserted them,” stated J Erik Connolly, Smartmatic's lawyer. “What was their response? They revert to what they know best: they return back to disinformation, pro-Trump propaganda and xenophobia. The election story and the fraud allegations were the perfect vehicle for them to get back onto their central messaging.”

A Multi-Billion Dollar Libel Lawsuit Hangs in the Balance

In courtroom presentations, both parties pleaded with the New York state supreme court judge David B Cohen to rule on essential aspects of Smartmatic's $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit ahead of a possible trial next year. The plaintiff maintains that Fox leaders hatched a plan to “shift” to Trump's claims to recapture disaffected viewers.

Fox's Vehement Denial

K Winn Allen, representing the network, vigorously denied these accusations. “No campaign of misinformation was authorized,” he stated. “It is total bunk. The evidence does not support it. It is hogwash. It is made up by lawyers on the other side.”

He further asserted that the Murdochs, who ultimately controlled the network, “didn't give anyone any orders to cover Smartmatic or the election fraud allegations.”

The Central Legal Hurdle: Proving “Knowing Falsity”

For Smartmatic to prevail, the company must prove that key figures at Fox News were aware the allegations lacked truth but allowed them to be broadcast regardless. In its filings, Smartmatic has pointed to private messages showing personalities like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo expressing doubt about the claims while also showing an interest to assist Trump.

Allen, Fox's lawyer argued that Smartmatic has “wildly inflated” its value and the estimated damages from the broadcasts. Fox contends its personalities were merely discussing newsworthy allegations from the president's allies, not promoting them.

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

A Previous Case Looms Large

Smartmatic's case strongly resemble the successful legal action brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox. In that case, a judge's summary judgment decisions were decisive, ruling that Fox's broadcasts were untrue and defamatory per se.

That ruling was later cited as a major reason in Fox's decision to resolve with Dominion for $787.5 million. A previous Fox legal officer noted that the court's initial decisions had “hamstrung” the company's legal defense at trial.

The Judge's Stance

Judge Cohen offered no clear hints of his leaning but told Smartmatic's lawyer that establishing “actual malice” for a summary judgment would be a “hard sell.” He said he planned to review all relevant television segments before making a decision.

“I think I have more than enough information, evidence, legal briefs, diagrams, graphs and all I need to make my ruling,” he told the two sides in the case.