🔗 Share this article

During a pivotal court hearing on Tuesday, a attorney for the voting technology company Smartmatic argued that senior leaders at Fox News, specifically Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, sanctioned a conscious strategy to adopt baseless claims of election fraud promoted by Donald Trump.

“The conservative viewers, their primary audience, abandoned them,” stated J Erik Connolly, the company's attorney. “What was their response? They revert to what they know best: they go back to disinformation, pro-Trump propaganda and xenophobia. The election narrative and the election fraud claims were the perfect vehicle for them to get back onto their core messaging.”

A Massive Defamation Lawsuit Is at Stake

In courtroom presentations, both sides urged with the New York state supreme court judge David B Cohen to decide on essential aspects of Smartmatic's $2.7bn defamation lawsuit before a potential trial in the coming year. The company maintains that Fox leaders hatched a plan to “pivot” to the former president's allegations to recapture angry viewers.

Fox's Vehement Rebuttal

K Winn Allen, representing the network, strongly contested these accusations. “No campaign of misinformation 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 ultimately controlled the network, “issued no directives to cover Smartmatic or the election fraud allegations.”

The Central Legal Hurdle: Proving “Knowing Falsity”

To win its case, the voting firm must prove that important personnel at Fox News were aware the allegations lacked truth but permitted them to be aired anyway. In its filings, Smartmatic cited private messages showing hosts like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo expressing doubt about the claims while also showing an interest to help Trump.

The network's attorney argued that Smartmatic has “wildly inflated” its value and the estimated damages from the coverage. Fox maintains its personalities were simply discussing newsworthy allegations from the president's allies, not promoting them.

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

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, ruling that Fox's broadcasts were untrue and inherently damaging.

That ruling was later cited as a key factor in Fox's choice to settle with Dominion for $787.5 million. A former Fox executive remarked that the court's initial decisions had “hamstrung” the company's legal defense at trial.

Judge Cohen's Stance

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

“I think I have sufficient information, data, legal briefs, diagrams, graphs and all I need to reach a verdict,” he told the two sides in the case.