🔗 Share this article

During a pivotal legal proceeding on Tuesday, a attorney for the voting technology firm Smartmatic contended that senior leaders at Fox News, specifically Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, authorized a conscious plan to embrace false claims of election fraud promoted by Donald Trump.

“Their core viewers, their primary audience, deserted them,” declared J Erik Connolly, the company's attorney. “What was their response? They return back to what they know best: they go back to misinformation, pro-Trump propaganda and xenophobia. The election narrative and the fraud allegations was the ideal tool for them to return to their core messaging.”

A Multi-Billion Dollar Libel Case Hangs in the Balance

During oral arguments, both parties urged with the New York state supreme court judge David B Cohen to decide on essential aspects of Smartmatic's $2.7bn legal action 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 win back angry viewers.

Fox's Vehement Denial

K Winn Allen, speaking for the network, strongly contested these accusations. “No disinformation campaign was ordered,” he stated. “It is total bunk. It is not supported by the record. It is nonsense. 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 Central Challenge: Proving “Knowing Falsity”

For Smartmatic to prevail, the company will have to demonstrate that key figures at Fox News knew the fraud claims were false but allowed them to be broadcast regardless. In its filings, Smartmatic has pointed to internal communications showing personalities like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo voicing skepticism about the claims while also expressing a desire to help Trump.

The network's attorney countered that Smartmatic has “wildly inflated” its worth and the projected damages from the coverage. Fox contends its hosts were simply reporting on newsworthy allegations from the president's allies, not endorsing them.

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

A Previous Case Looms Large

The arguments closely mirror the successful legal action brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox. In that case, a judge's summary judgment decisions were decisive, finding that Fox's broadcasts were false and inherently damaging.

That ruling was later cited as a key factor in Fox's decision to resolve with Dominion for $787.5 million. A previous Fox executive remarked that the judge's pre-trial rulings had “severely limited” the company's legal defense at trial.

Judge Cohen's Stance

The presiding judge offered no clear hints of his leaning but told Smartmatic's lawyer that establishing “actual malice” for a pre-trial ruling would be a “difficult task.” He stated he planned to review all pertinent television segments before issuing his rulings.

“I think I have more than enough information, evidence, legal briefs, diagrams, graphs and all I need to make my ruling,” he informed the parties in the case.