Fox News

The evidence in the case “demonstrates that is CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true,” the judge ...

The Fox case has garnered the most attention of the company’s lawsuits, as recent court filings in the case have revealed [dozens of comments](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/03/10/dominion-v-fox-news-here-are-the-most-explosive-comments-anchors-and-rupert-murdoch-made-about-the-2020-election-behind-the-scenes/?sh=1d9fa141aaeb) from such figures as Carlson, Hannity and Rupert Murdoch casting doubt on the fraud claims. [defamation cases](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/02/15/court-lets-lawsuit-against-fox-news-move-forward-heres-where-dominion-and-smartmatics-defamation-suits-stand-now/?sh=5b568e42364a) the company and rival Smartmatic have brought against right-wing figures and news, including a separate Smartmatic case against Fox and several of its anchors. Carlson called the fraud claims “insane” and “absurd” and said he “hate[s] [Trump] passionately,” for instance, while Murdoch [admitted](https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2023/02/27/murdoch-admits-fox-news-hosts-pushed-false-election-fraud-claims/?sh=5fb159d3494b) he did not believe the fraud claims but did not stop election deniers from appearing on the network and said, “I would have liked us to be stronger in denouncing [the fraud claims] in hindsight.” Defamation cases have typically been hard to prove in court, as plaintiffs must prove that the alleged defamer acted with “actual malice” knowing their claims were false, but legal experts have [speculated](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2023-03-01/whats-next-for-fox-news-after-rupert-murdochs-bombshell-testimony-in-the-dominion-case) the substantial evidence of Fox officials discussing the fraud claims could be enough to meet that burden. [denied](https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=345820) motions by Fox News and Dominion for summary judgment—which would have meant the case was decided without a trial—but did rule on Dominion’s allegations that claims made about its voting machines on Fox News were false. That’s how much Dominion is asking Fox to pay for its alleged defamation, though the final amount could end up being higher or lower based on what the jury decides. [to testify](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/21/business/fox-news-dominion-summary-judgment?utm_source=business_ribbon), which Fox has opposed. The trial is expected to be a high-profile affair, and Dominion has pushed for Fox Corporation chair Rupert Murdoch Fox has strongly opposed the $1.6 billion figure as being disproportionately high based on Dominion’s value as a company and its losses stemming from the fraud claims. Other major [witnesses](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/28/dominion-lawsuit-fox-news-hosts-executives-testify) who are likely to testify include Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro and Fox Corp CEO Lachlan Murdoch. and is it to settle for a few hundred million dollars and walk away and never discuss it again,” media law expert Daniel Novack told the [Hollywood Reporter](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-first-amendment-1235354193/), while former federal prosecutor Tim Heaphy told [MSNBC](https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/fox-news-settle-dominion-rcna74038) he believes Dominion wouldn’t want to settle because “they want a lot of these facts to be laid bare in a courtroom in a public proceeding.” It’s still possible the case could be resolved before then if the two sides agree to settle, though so far there hasn’t been [any indication](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/03/03/fox-unlikely-to-settle-with-dominion-over-election-lies-as-high-stakes-trial-nears-experts-say/?sh=5a7ec36e3c7f) that will happen. Sources at Fox cited by the [Los Angeles Times](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2023-03-01/whats-next-for-fox-news-after-rupert-murdochs-bombshell-testimony-in-the-dominion-case) in early March said there was “no sign a settlement is near,” and legal experts are divided on whether they think the case could end before it goes to trial.

A voting machine company's defamation case against Fox News over its airing of false allegations about the 2020 presidential election will go to trial after ...

It ruled that plaintiffs needed to prove that news outlets published or aired false material with “actual malice” — knowing it was false or acting with a “reckless disregard” for whether or not it was true. “Fox knew the truth,” Dominion argued in court papers. Davis ruled that the statements Dominion had challenged constitute defamation “per se” under New York law. “In fact, although it cannot be attributed directly to Fox’s statements, it is noteworthy that some Americans still believe the election was rigged.” The U.S. “Fox will continue to fiercely advocate for the rights of free speech and a free press as we move into the next phase of these proceedings,” the network said in a statement Friday.

Federal judge refuses to dismiss $1.6bn defamation lawsuit against network, allowing the case to proceed to trial in mid-April.

“This case is and always has been about the first amendment protections of the media’s absolute right to cover the news,” the statement read. “Therefore, the Court will grant summary judgment in favor of Dominion on the element of falsity.” “We are gratified by the Court’s thorough ruling soundly rejecting all of Fox’s arguments and defenses, and finding as a matter of law that their statements about Dominion are false,” they wrote.

Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis ruled Friday that Dominion Voting Systems' blockbuster defamation suit against Fox News over baseless claims it ...

Dominion's spokesperson said the company was "gratified by the Court's thorough ruling soundly rejecting all of Fox's arguments and defenses, and finding as a matter of law that their statements about Dominion are false. "This case is and always has been about the First Amendment protections of the media's absolute right to cover the news," a Fox News spokeswoman said. "When viewed in the full context of the overall communication expressed during the segment, a reasonable viewer would understand that the Statement is asserting facts regarding Dominion, not an opinion." In a further instance, Davis ruled against Fox's argument of a "neutral reporting" privilege that protects it from any liability if it accurately conveys the allegations of newsworthy people. "A lot of the arguments that Fox has been making are now gone. "We now have a finding, as a matter of law, that Fox defamed Dominion," says Thomas Wienner, a retired Michigan-based corporate litigator who has been monitoring the case for NPR.

The judge said the case would still need to proceed to trial, for a jury to weigh whether Fox News knowingly spread false claims about Dominion Voting ...

In the decision, the judge left that question up to a jury. Dominion has argued that texts and emails between Fox executives and hosts proved that many knew the claims were false but put them on the air anyway. Dominion, in a statement, said: “We are gratified by the court’s thorough ruling soundly rejecting all of Fox’s arguments and defenses, and finding as a matter of law that their statements about Dominion are false. In Friday’s decision, Judge Davis said damages, if they were awarded to Dominion, would be calculated by the jury. Fox has argued that it was merely reporting on allegations of voter fraud as inherently newsworthy and that any statements its hosts made about supposed fraud were covered under the Constitution as opinion. Dobbs said: “I think many Americans have given no thought to electoral fraud that would be perpetrated through electronic voting; that is, these machines, these electronic voting companies including Dominion, prominently Dominion, at least in the suspicions of a lot of Americans.” RonNell Andersen Jones, a law professor and First Amendment scholar at the University of Utah’s S.J. For example, in a “Lou Dobbs Tonight” broadcast on Nov. The trial is expected to begin April 17. A spokeswoman for Fox said the case “is and always has been about the First Amendment protections of the media’s absolute right to cover the news.” Judge Davis said the case would proceed to trial, for a jury to weigh whether Fox spread false claims about Dominion while knowing that they were untrue, and to determine any damages. The judge said the case would still need to proceed to trial, for a jury to weigh whether Fox News knowingly spread false claims about Dominion Voting Systems, and to determine any damages.

It is "CRYSTAL clear" that Fox made false statements about the voting company after the 2020 election, the judge wrote.

Therefore, the question of falsity is whether the content of the allegations was true, not whether Fox truthfully republished the allegations.” “This case is and always has been about the First Amendment protections of the media’s absolute right to cover the news. The trial is expected to feature testimony from top Fox personalities including Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and others. It claims that ‘[t]he question is whether the press reported the “true” fact that the President made those allegations,’” Davis wrote. We look forward to going to trial,” the firm said. Fox’s false statements included assertions that the company was controlled by Venezuela and implemented a bizarre algorithm to boost Democrats’ vote count under certain conditions, the judge said.

The judge overseeing Dominion Voting Systems' defamation suit against Fox News ruled Friday that the case will go to trial, rebuffing efforts by Fox to have ...

But the judge granted part of Dominion's summary judgment motion on defamation per se and falsity -- ruling that the statements that Fox presented were, in fact, false. In a statement, Fox said, "This case is and always has been about the First Amendment protections of the media's absolute right to cover the news. Attorneys for Fox News and Dominion presented arguments last week in dueling summary judgment motions each side had submitted earlier.

Judge says 'crystal clear' that statements about Donald Trump's 2020 election loss were false.

For cost savings, you can change your plan at any time online in the “Settings & Account” section. Compare Standard and Premium Digital For a full comparison of Standard and Premium Digital,

Dominion Voting's $1.6 billion defamation suit versus Fox News Channel appears headed to court after a judge's ruling Friday.

“This case is and always has been about the First Amendment protections of the media’s absolute right to cover the news,” Fox said in a statement. Among the Fox luminaries Dominion expects to call to the stand are Fox News Media CEO Suzanne Scott; prominent anchors like Tucker Carlson and Maria Bartiromo; and “Therefore, the Court will grant summary judgment in favor of Dominion on the element of falsity.” Still, he ruled that the statements Dominion had challenged constitute defamation “per se” under New York law, which means Dominion doesn’t have to prove damages to establish that Fox could be liable. It is the second legal proceeding made against Fox News for its coverage of the aftermath of the 2020 race for the White House. “We look forward to going to trial.” The case is expected to begin April 17.