🔗 Share this article

During a pivotal legal proceeding on Tuesday, a attorney for the voting technology firm Smartmatic contended that top executives at Fox News, including Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, authorized a deliberate plan to embrace false assertions of election fraud promoted by Donald Trump.

“Their core viewers, their primary audience, abandoned them,” stated J Erik Connolly, the company's attorney. “What was their response? They return back to what they know best: they return back to disinformation, pro-Trump propaganda and fear-mongering. The election story and the fraud allegations was the perfect vehicle for them to return to their central messaging.”

A Massive Libel Case Is at Stake

In oral arguments, both parties pleaded with the New York state supreme court judge David B Cohen to decide on critical elements of Smartmatic's $2.7bn legal action before a potential trial next year. The company argues that Fox executives devised a plan to “shift” to the former president's allegations to recapture angry viewers.

The Network's Strong Rebuttal

K Winn Allen, speaking for the network, vigorously denied these accusations. “No campaign of misinformation was authorized,” he stated. “It is completely false. It is not supported by the record. It is hogwash. It is made up by opposing counsel.”

He added 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 Core Legal Hurdle: Proving “Knowing Falsity”

To win its case, the voting firm will have to demonstrate that key figures at Fox News knew the allegations were false but permitted them to be aired regardless. Through legal motions, Smartmatic has pointed to private messages showing hosts like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo voicing skepticism about the claims while also expressing a desire to help Trump.

Allen, Fox's lawyer countered that Smartmatic has “grossly exaggerated” its worth and the estimated financial losses from the coverage. Fox contends its hosts were merely discussing newsworthy claims from the president's allies, not endorsing them.

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

A Previous Case Looms Large

The arguments strongly resemble 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 statements were untrue and defamatory per se.

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

The Judge's Position

Judge Cohen offered few hints of his leaning but informed Smartmatic's lawyer that establishing “actual malice” for a summary judgment would be a “difficult task.” He stated he planned to examine all pertinent broadcasts before issuing his rulings.

“I believe I have more than enough material, evidence, legal briefs, diagrams, charts and everything I need to make my ruling,” he told the two sides in the lawsuit.