🔗 Share this article

In a key court hearing on Tuesday, a lawyer for the voting technology company Smartmatic contended that top leaders at Fox News, specifically Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, authorized a conscious strategy to adopt false claims of voting fraud promoted by Donald Trump.

“Their core viewers, their bread and butter, deserted them,” declared J Erik Connolly, Smartmatic's lawyer. “So what do they do? They revert to what they know best: they return back to misinformation, pro-Trump propaganda and xenophobia. The election narrative and the election fraud claims were the perfect tool for them to get back onto their central messaging.”

A Massive Defamation Case Is at Stake

During oral arguments, both sides urged with the New York state supreme court judge David B Cohen to decide on essential aspects of Smartmatic's $2.7 billion legal action before a potential trial next year. The plaintiff maintains that Fox leaders hatched a plan to “shift” to Trump's claims to win back disaffected viewers.

The Network's Strong Rebuttal

A lawyer for Fox News, representing the network, vigorously denied these accusations. “No disinformation campaign was authorized,” he said. “It is completely false. It is not supported by the record. It is nonsense. It is made up by opposing counsel.”

He further asserted that the Murdochs, who ultimately controlled the network, “issued no directives to cover Smartmatic or the fraud claims.”

The Central Legal Hurdle: Proving “Knowing Falsity”

For Smartmatic to prevail, the voting firm will have to demonstrate that important personnel at Fox News knew the fraud claims lacked truth but allowed them to be aired regardless. In its filings, Smartmatic cited private messages showing personalities like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo expressing doubt about the claims while also expressing a desire to help Trump.

Allen, Fox's lawyer argued that Smartmatic has “wildly inflated” its worth and the estimated damages from the coverage. Fox contends its personalities were simply reporting on newsworthy claims from the president's associates, not promoting them.

“This suit really isn't about Fox's coverage of the 2020 election,” said Allen. “It's about Smartmatic's attempt to seize on comments made by the president's lawyers to rescue its business viability.”

A Previous Case Is Highly Relevant

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

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

Judge Cohen's Stance

The presiding judge gave few hints of his thinking but informed Smartmatic's lawyer that proving “actual malice” for a summary judgment would be a “difficult task.” He stated he intended to review all relevant television segments before issuing his rulings.

“I believe I have more than enough information, evidence, briefings, diagrams, charts and everything I need to make my ruling,” he informed the two sides in the case.