🔗 Share this article

In a key court hearing on Tuesday, a attorney for the voting technology firm Smartmatic contended that senior leaders at Fox News, specifically Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, authorized a deliberate strategy to embrace false assertions of election fraud promoted by Donald Trump.

“Their core viewers, their primary audience, deserted them,” declared J Erik Connolly, the company's attorney. “What was their response? They revert to what they know best: they return back to misinformation, political propaganda and xenophobia. The election narrative and the fraud allegations were the ideal vehicle for them to return to their central messaging.”

A Massive Libel Case Is at Stake

In oral arguments, both sides pleaded with Judge David B Cohen to rule on critical aspects of Smartmatic's $2.7bn defamation lawsuit before a possible trial in the coming year. The company argues that Fox leaders hatched a plan to “shift” to the former president's allegations to win back angry viewers.

Fox's Vehement Denial

K Winn Allen, speaking for the network, vigorously denied these accusations. “No disinformation campaign was ordered,” he stated. “It is completely false. 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, “didn't give anyone any orders 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 were aware the allegations lacked truth but allowed them to be aired anyway. Through legal motions, Smartmatic cited internal communications showing personalities like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo expressing doubt about the claims while also expressing a desire to help Trump.

The network's attorney countered that Smartmatic has “wildly inflated” its value and the estimated financial losses from the broadcasts. Fox maintains its hosts were simply discussing newsworthy claims from the president's allies, not promoting them.

“This suit really isn't 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 rescue its financial livelihood.”

A Precedent Looms Large

The arguments strongly resemble the successful legal action brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox. In that matter, a judge's pre-trial rulings proved critical, finding that Fox's broadcasts were untrue and inherently damaging.

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

Judge Cohen's Stance

The presiding judge gave few hints of his leaning but informed Smartmatic's lawyer that proving “knowledge of falsity” for a summary judgment would be a “difficult task.” He stated he intended to examine all relevant television segments before making a decision.

“I think I have sufficient information, evidence, briefings, charts, graphs and all I need to reach a verdict,” he informed the two sides in the case.