🔗 Share this article

In a pivotal court hearing on Tuesday, a attorney for the voting technology company Smartmatic contended that senior executives at Fox News, specifically Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, sanctioned a deliberate strategy to embrace false claims of election fraud promoted by Donald Trump.

“The conservative viewers, their bread and butter, abandoned them,” declared J Erik Connolly, Smartmatic's lawyer. “What was their response? They revert to what they know best: they go back to disinformation, 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 Multi-Billion Dollar Defamation Lawsuit Hangs in the Balance

In oral arguments, both parties urged with the New York state supreme court judge David B Cohen to rule on critical elements of Smartmatic's $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit before a potential trial in the coming year. The company maintains that Fox executives hatched a plan to “shift” to Trump's claims to win back angry viewers.

Fox's Vehement Denial

K Winn Allen, speaking for the network, strongly contested these accusations. “No campaign of misinformation was ordered,” he stated. “It is total bunk. The evidence does not support it. It is hogwash. It is made up by lawyers on the other side.”

He further asserted that the Murdochs, who ultimately controlled the network, “didn't give anyone any orders to cover Smartmatic or the fraud claims.”

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 lacked truth but allowed them to be aired anyway. Through legal motions, Smartmatic cited internal communications showing personalities like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo voicing skepticism about the claims while also showing an interest to assist Trump.

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

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

A Previous Case Is Highly Relevant

Smartmatic's case 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 broadcasts were untrue and defamatory per se.

That legal decision was later cited as a key factor in Fox's choice to settle with Dominion for $787.5 million. A former Fox executive remarked that the judge's pre-trial rulings had “hamstrung” the company's ability to defend itself at trial.

The Judge's Position

The presiding judge offered few indications of his leaning but informed Smartmatic's lawyer that establishing “knowledge of falsity” for a summary judgment would be a “difficult task.” He said he planned to examine all relevant television segments before issuing his rulings.

“I believe I have more than enough material, data, legal briefs, diagrams, charts and all I need to reach a verdict,” he told the two sides in the lawsuit.