🔗 Share this article

During a key court hearing on Tuesday, a lawyer for the voting technology company Smartmatic argued that senior executives at Fox News, including Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, authorized a deliberate strategy to embrace false claims of election fraud promoted by Donald Trump.

“The conservative viewers, their primary audience, deserted them,” stated J Erik Connolly, Smartmatic's lawyer. “What was their response? They revert to what they know best: they go back to misinformation, pro-Trump propaganda and xenophobia. The election narrative and the fraud allegations was the perfect vehicle for them to return to their core messaging.”

A Multi-Billion Dollar Libel Case Hangs in the Balance

During courtroom presentations, both parties pleaded with the New York state supreme court judge David B Cohen to rule on essential elements of Smartmatic's $2.7bn defamation lawsuit ahead of a potential trial next year. The company argues that Fox leaders hatched a plan to “shift” to the former president's allegations to win back angry viewers.

Fox's Vehement Rebuttal

A lawyer for Fox News, speaking for the network, strongly contested these claims. “No disinformation campaign was authorized,” he said. “It is completely false. The evidence does not support it. It is nonsense. It is made up by opposing counsel.”

He added that the Murdochs, who held ultimate control over the network, “issued no directives to cover Smartmatic or the election fraud allegations.”

The Core Challenge: Proving “Knowing Falsity”

For Smartmatic to prevail, the voting firm will have to demonstrate that important personnel at Fox News were aware the allegations were false but allowed them to be aired anyway. Through legal motions, Smartmatic cited internal communications showing hosts like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo expressing doubt about the claims while also expressing a desire to help Trump.

Allen, Fox's lawyer countered that Smartmatic has “grossly exaggerated” its worth and the projected financial losses from the broadcasts. Fox maintains its hosts were merely discussing newsworthy claims from the president's allies, not promoting them.

“This suit really isn't about Fox's reporting of the 2020 election,” the Fox lawyer stated. “It concerns Smartmatic's effort to capitalize on remarks made by the president's lawyers to salvage its financial livelihood.”

A Previous Case Is Highly Relevant

The arguments strongly resemble the successful legal action brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox. In that matter, a judge's pre-trial rulings proved critical, ruling that Fox's statements were untrue 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 former Fox legal officer noted that the court's initial decisions had “hamstrung” the company's legal defense at trial.

Judge Cohen's Stance

The presiding judge offered few indications of his leaning but told Smartmatic's lawyer that establishing “knowledge of falsity” for a summary judgment would be a “hard sell.” He said he planned to review all pertinent television segments before issuing his rulings.

“I think I have more than enough information, evidence, legal briefs, diagrams, charts and everything I need to reach a verdict,” he told the two sides in the lawsuit.