🔗 Share this article

In a key legal proceeding on Tuesday, a lawyer for the voting technology firm Smartmatic argued that senior leaders at Fox News, including Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, sanctioned a deliberate plan to embrace baseless assertions of voting fraud promoted by Donald Trump.

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

A Multi-Billion Dollar Libel Case Is at Stake

In courtroom presentations, both sides pleaded with the New York state supreme court judge David B Cohen to decide on essential elements of Smartmatic's $2.7 billion legal action before a possible trial next year. The plaintiff argues that Fox executives devised a plan to “shift” to the former president's allegations to win back disaffected viewers.

Fox's Vehement Denial

A lawyer for Fox News, speaking for the network, vigorously denied these claims. “No disinformation campaign was ordered,” he stated. “It is total bunk. The evidence does not support it. 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, “issued no directives to cover Smartmatic or the election fraud allegations.”

The Central Legal Hurdle: Proving “Actual Malice”

For Smartmatic to prevail, the voting firm will have to demonstrate that key figures at Fox News knew the allegations lacked truth but permitted them to be aired anyway. Through legal motions, Smartmatic has pointed to internal communications showing hosts like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo voicing skepticism about the claims while also showing an interest to assist Trump.

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

“This suit is not truly about Fox's reporting of the 2020 election,” said Allen. “It concerns Smartmatic's effort to capitalize on comments made by the president's lawyers to rescue its financial livelihood.”

A Previous Case Looms Large

Smartmatic's case closely mirror the successful defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox. In that matter, a judge's pre-trial rulings proved critical, ruling that Fox's broadcasts were untrue and defamatory per se.

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

The Judge's Position

The presiding judge gave few indications of his leaning but told Smartmatic's lawyer that proving “actual malice” for a pre-trial ruling would be a “hard sell.” He stated he intended to examine all relevant television segments before issuing his rulings.

“I believe I have more than enough information, data, legal briefs, charts, charts and all I need to make my ruling,” he informed the parties in the case.