🔗 Share this article

In a pivotal court hearing on Tuesday, a attorney for the voting technology company Smartmatic contended that senior executives at Fox News, including Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, sanctioned a conscious plan to embrace baseless claims of voting fraud promoted by Donald Trump.

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

A Massive Defamation Lawsuit Is at Stake

In oral arguments, both sides pleaded with the New York state supreme court judge David B Cohen to decide on critical elements of Smartmatic's $2.7 billion legal action ahead of a potential trial in the coming year. The company maintains that Fox leaders hatched a plan to “shift” to the former president's allegations to win back 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. It is not supported by the record. 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 “Knowing Falsity”

For Smartmatic to prevail, the company will have to demonstrate that important personnel at Fox News knew the fraud claims were false but permitted them to be broadcast regardless. Through legal motions, Smartmatic has pointed to private messages showing personalities like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo expressing doubt about the claims while also expressing a desire to help Trump.

The network's attorney countered that Smartmatic has “grossly exaggerated” its worth and the estimated financial losses from the coverage. Fox contends its hosts were simply discussing newsworthy claims from the president's associates, not endorsing them.

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

A Previous Case Is Highly Relevant

The arguments strongly resemble the successful defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox. In that matter, a judge's summary judgment decisions proved critical, ruling that Fox's broadcasts were false and defamatory per se.

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

The Judge's Stance

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

“I think I have sufficient information, data, briefings, charts, graphs and all I need to make my ruling,” he told the parties in the lawsuit.