🔗 Share this article

During a key court hearing on Tuesday, a lawyer for the voting technology firm Smartmatic contended that senior executives at Fox News, specifically Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, authorized a conscious plan to embrace false claims of voting fraud championed by Donald Trump.

“The conservative viewers, their primary audience, deserted them,” declared J Erik Connolly, the company's attorney. “So what do they do? They revert to what they know best: they return back to misinformation, pro-Trump propaganda and xenophobia. The election story and the election fraud claims were the ideal tool for them to return to their central messaging.”

A Massive Defamation Lawsuit Is at Stake

During oral arguments, both parties pleaded with Judge David B Cohen to rule on critical elements of Smartmatic's $2.7bn legal action ahead of a potential trial in the coming year. The plaintiff maintains that Fox executives devised a plan to “shift” to the former president's allegations to win back angry viewers.

Fox's Vehement Denial

K Winn Allen, representing the network, vigorously denied these claims. “No disinformation campaign was ordered,” he stated. “It is completely false. The evidence does not support it. It is nonsense. It is made up by lawyers on the other side.”

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

The Core Challenge: Proving “Actual Malice”

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 has pointed to internal communications showing hosts like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo voicing skepticism 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 financial losses from the coverage. Fox contends its hosts were simply reporting on newsworthy claims from the president's allies, not endorsing them.

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

A Previous Case Looms Large

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

That legal decision was later cited as a major reason in Fox's decision to resolve with Dominion for $787.5 million. A former Fox executive noted that the judge's pre-trial rulings had “hamstrung” the company's legal defense at trial.

The Judge's Stance

Judge Cohen offered no clear indications of his thinking but informed Smartmatic's lawyer that proving “knowledge of falsity” for a summary judgment would be a “hard sell.” He said he planned to review all pertinent broadcasts before issuing his rulings.

“I think I have sufficient material, evidence, briefings, diagrams, graphs and everything I need to make my ruling,” he told the two sides in the case.