🔗 Share this article

In a pivotal legal proceeding on Tuesday, a attorney for the voting technology firm Smartmatic argued that senior executives at Fox News, specifically Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, sanctioned a conscious strategy to embrace baseless claims of voting fraud promoted by Donald Trump.

“Their core viewers, their primary audience, deserted them,” declared J Erik Connolly, Smartmatic's lawyer. “What was their response? They revert to what they know best: they go back to misinformation, pro-Trump propaganda and fear-mongering. The election narrative and the election fraud claims were the perfect vehicle for them to get back onto their core messaging.”

A Massive Libel Case Hangs in the Balance

In oral arguments, both parties pleaded with Judge David B Cohen to decide on critical elements of Smartmatic's $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit ahead of a possible trial in the coming year. The company argues that Fox leaders devised a plan to “shift” to Trump's claims to recapture angry viewers.

Fox's Vehement Rebuttal

K Winn Allen, representing the network, strongly contested these claims. “No disinformation campaign was authorized,” he said. “It is total bunk. The evidence does not support it. It is hogwash. It was fabricated by opposing counsel.”

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

The Central Challenge: Proving “Actual Malice”

To win its case, the company must prove that key figures at Fox News knew the fraud claims lacked truth but allowed 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 expressing a desire to assist Trump.

The network's attorney countered that Smartmatic has “grossly exaggerated” its value and the projected financial losses from the broadcasts. Fox contends its personalities were merely reporting on newsworthy claims from the president's allies, not endorsing them.

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

A Precedent Looms Large

The arguments closely mirror the prior legal action brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox. In that matter, a judge's pre-trial rulings were decisive, finding that Fox's statements were untrue and inherently damaging.

That legal decision was later cited as a major reason in Fox's choice to resolve with Dominion for $787.5 million. A former Fox executive remarked that the court's initial decisions had “severely limited” the company's legal defense at trial.

Judge Cohen's Position

Judge Cohen gave few hints of his leaning but told Smartmatic's lawyer that proving “actual malice” for a summary judgment would be a “hard sell.” He said he intended to examine all pertinent television segments before issuing his rulings.

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