🔗 Share this article

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

“The conservative viewers, their bread and butter, abandoned them,” declared J Erik Connolly, Smartmatic's lawyer. “So what do they do? They revert to what they know best: they go back to misinformation, political propaganda and fear-mongering. The election story and the fraud allegations were the perfect vehicle for them to get back onto their central messaging.”

A Massive Libel Case Hangs in the Balance

In courtroom presentations, both parties urged with Judge David B Cohen to decide on essential aspects of Smartmatic's $2.7 billion legal action ahead of a potential trial next year. The plaintiff argues that Fox executives devised a plan to “pivot” to the former president's allegations to win back angry viewers.

The Network's Strong Denial

K Winn Allen, speaking for the network, vigorously denied these claims. “No disinformation campaign was authorized,” he said. “It is total bunk. The evidence does not support it. It is hogwash. It was fabricated 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 Central Challenge: Proving “Actual Malice”

For Smartmatic to prevail, the voting firm will have to demonstrate that key figures at Fox News were aware the fraud claims were false but permitted them to be aired anyway. In its filings, Smartmatic cited internal communications showing hosts like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo voicing skepticism about the claims while also showing an interest to assist Trump.

The network's attorney argued that Smartmatic has “wildly inflated” its value and the estimated damages from the coverage. Fox contends its hosts were merely reporting on newsworthy allegations from the president's allies, not promoting them.

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

A Previous Case Looms Large

Smartmatic's case closely mirror the successful 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 inherently damaging.

That ruling 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 judge's pre-trial rulings had “hamstrung” the company's ability to defend itself at trial.

The Judge's Stance

The presiding judge offered no clear hints of his thinking but told Smartmatic's lawyer that proving “actual malice” for a pre-trial ruling would be a “difficult task.” He stated he planned to examine all relevant television segments before making a decision.

“I believe I have more than enough information, data, briefings, charts, charts and everything I need to make my ruling,” he informed the two sides in the case.