🔗 Share this article

During a key court hearing on Tuesday, a lawyer for the voting technology company Smartmatic argued that top executives at Fox News, specifically Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, authorized a conscious strategy to adopt baseless assertions of voting fraud championed by Donald Trump.

“The conservative viewers, their primary audience, deserted them,” stated J Erik Connolly, Smartmatic's lawyer. “So what do they do? They revert to what they know best: they go back to disinformation, pro-Trump propaganda and xenophobia. The election story and the fraud allegations was the ideal tool for them to return to their core messaging.”

A Massive Defamation Lawsuit Hangs in the Balance

During oral arguments, both sides pleaded with the New York state supreme court 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 company argues that Fox leaders hatched a plan to “shift” to the former president's allegations to win back angry viewers.

The Network's Strong Rebuttal

K Winn Allen, speaking for the network, vigorously denied these accusations. “No campaign of misinformation was authorized,” he stated. “It is completely false. The evidence does not support it. It is hogwash. 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 Central Legal Hurdle: Proving “Knowing Falsity”

To win its case, the voting firm 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 cited private messages showing hosts like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo expressing doubt about the claims while also expressing a desire to assist Trump.

The network's attorney argued that Smartmatic has “wildly inflated” 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 promoting them.

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

A Precedent Is Highly Relevant

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

That ruling was later cited as a major reason in Fox's choice to settle with Dominion for $787.5 million. A former Fox legal officer remarked that the court's initial decisions had “hamstrung” the company's ability to defend itself at trial.

The Judge's Position

Judge Cohen gave no clear hints of his leaning but told Smartmatic's lawyer that establishing “knowledge of falsity” for a pre-trial ruling would be a “difficult task.” He stated he planned to examine all pertinent television segments before issuing his rulings.

“I believe I have sufficient material, evidence, legal briefs, charts, charts and all I need to make my ruling,” he told the two sides in the lawsuit.