🔗 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, including Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, authorized a deliberate strategy to embrace baseless assertions of voting fraud championed by Donald Trump.

“The conservative viewers, their bread and butter, abandoned them,” stated J Erik Connolly, the company's attorney. “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 was the ideal tool for them to get back onto their core messaging.”

A Massive Defamation Case Is at Stake

In courtroom presentations, both parties urged with Judge David B Cohen to decide on essential aspects of Smartmatic's $2.7 billion legal action before a potential trial next year. The plaintiff argues that Fox leaders devised a plan to “pivot” to Trump's claims to recapture disaffected viewers.

Fox's Vehement Rebuttal

K Winn Allen, speaking for the network, vigorously denied these claims. “No campaign of misinformation was authorized,” he stated. “It is completely false. The evidence does not support it. It is nonsense. It is made up by opposing counsel.”

He further asserted that the Murdochs, who ultimately controlled the network, “issued no directives to cover Smartmatic or the election fraud allegations.”

The Central Challenge: Proving “Knowing Falsity”

For Smartmatic to prevail, the company must prove that key figures at Fox News knew the allegations lacked truth but permitted them to be broadcast regardless. In its filings, Smartmatic cited private messages showing personalities like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo expressing doubt about the claims while also expressing a desire to help Trump.

Allen, Fox's lawyer argued that Smartmatic has “wildly inflated” its value and the projected damages from the broadcasts. Fox maintains its hosts were merely discussing newsworthy allegations from the president's allies, not promoting them.

“This lawsuit really isn't about Fox's coverage of the 2020 election,” the Fox lawyer stated. “It's about Smartmatic's attempt to capitalize on comments made by the president's lawyers to rescue its financial livelihood.”

A Precedent Is Highly Relevant

The arguments closely mirror the prior legal action brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox. In that case, a judge's pre-trial rulings proved critical, ruling that Fox's broadcasts were false and inherently damaging.

That ruling was later cited as a major reason in Fox's decision to settle with Dominion for $787.5 million. A former Fox legal officer remarked 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 thinking but informed Smartmatic's lawyer that proving “actual malice” for a summary judgment would be a “hard sell.” He said he intended to review all pertinent broadcasts before making a decision.

“I think I have more than enough material, evidence, briefings, charts, graphs and everything I need to reach a verdict,” he informed the two sides in the case.