🔗 Share this article

During a pivotal court hearing on Tuesday, a attorney for the voting technology company Smartmatic contended that top executives at Fox News, including Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, authorized a conscious plan to embrace baseless assertions of voting fraud promoted by Donald Trump.

“The conservative viewers, their bread and butter, abandoned them,” declared J Erik Connolly, the company's attorney. “What was their response? They revert to what they know best: they return back to disinformation, political propaganda and fear-mongering. The election narrative and the fraud allegations was the ideal vehicle for them to get back onto their core messaging.”

A Massive Defamation Lawsuit Hangs in the Balance

During courtroom presentations, both sides urged with the New York state supreme court judge David B Cohen to decide on critical aspects of Smartmatic's $2.7bn legal action ahead of a possible trial in the coming 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 Denial

K Winn Allen, representing the network, strongly contested these claims. “No campaign of misinformation was ordered,” 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, “didn't give anyone any orders to cover Smartmatic or the election fraud allegations.”

The Central Challenge: Proving “Knowing Falsity”

For Smartmatic to prevail, the company must prove that important personnel at Fox News were aware the allegations were false but permitted them to be aired anyway. Through legal motions, Smartmatic has pointed to internal communications showing personalities like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo expressing doubt 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 damages from the coverage. Fox maintains its hosts were merely reporting on newsworthy allegations from the president's associates, not promoting them.

“This suit is not truly about Fox's coverage of the 2020 election,” said Allen. “It's about Smartmatic's effort to capitalize on remarks made by the president's lawyers to rescue its financial livelihood.”

A Previous Case Is Highly Relevant

The arguments closely mirror the prior defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox. In that matter, a judge's pre-trial rulings were decisive, ruling 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 resolve with Dominion for $787.5 million. A previous Fox executive noted that the court's initial decisions had “severely limited” the company's legal defense at trial.

The Judge's Stance

The presiding judge gave no clear indications of his leaning but informed Smartmatic's lawyer that proving “actual malice” for a summary judgment would be a “hard sell.” He said he planned to review all pertinent television segments before making a decision.

“I think I have more than enough information, evidence, legal briefs, charts, graphs and all I need to make my ruling,” he informed the two sides in the lawsuit.