🔗 Share this article

During a pivotal court hearing on Tuesday, a lawyer for the voting technology firm Smartmatic contended that senior leaders at Fox News, including Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, sanctioned a deliberate plan to embrace baseless assertions of election fraud championed by Donald Trump.

“Their core viewers, their bread and butter, deserted them,” stated J Erik Connolly, Smartmatic's lawyer. “So what do they do? They revert to what they know best: they return back to disinformation, political propaganda and fear-mongering. The election story and the fraud allegations were the ideal vehicle for them to return to their core messaging.”

A Massive Defamation Lawsuit Is at Stake

During oral arguments, both sides pleaded with the New York state supreme court judge David B Cohen to rule on critical elements of Smartmatic's $2.7bn defamation lawsuit ahead of a possible trial next year. The plaintiff maintains that Fox leaders hatched a plan to “shift” to the former president's allegations to recapture angry viewers.

The Network's Strong Denial

A lawyer for Fox News, speaking for the network, vigorously denied these claims. “No disinformation campaign was authorized,” he stated. “It is total bunk. The evidence does not support it. It is hogwash. It is made up by opposing counsel.”

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 Core Legal Hurdle: Proving “Knowing Falsity”

To win its case, the company must prove that important personnel at Fox News were aware the allegations were false but permitted them to be broadcast anyway. In its filings, Smartmatic cited private messages showing hosts like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo voicing skepticism about the claims while also showing an interest to assist Trump.

Allen, Fox's lawyer countered that Smartmatic has “wildly inflated” its value and the projected financial losses from the coverage. Fox maintains its personalities were merely reporting on newsworthy claims from the president's allies, not endorsing them.

“This lawsuit really isn't about Fox's reporting of the 2020 election,” the Fox lawyer stated. “It's about Smartmatic's effort to seize on remarks made by the president's lawyers to salvage its business viability.”

A Previous Case Is Highly Relevant

Smartmatic's case strongly resemble the prior legal action brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox. In that matter, a judge's summary judgment decisions proved critical, finding that Fox's statements were untrue and defamatory per se.

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

The Judge's Position

Judge Cohen offered no clear hints of his leaning but informed Smartmatic's lawyer that proving “knowledge of falsity” for a summary judgment would be a “hard sell.” He said he intended to review all pertinent television segments before making a decision.

“I think I have sufficient information, data, legal briefs, charts, charts and everything I need to make my ruling,” he told the parties in the lawsuit.