Fox News is gearing up for another legal confrontation as the broadcaster faces a defamation lawsuit from Smartmatic over the contentious claims concerning the 2020 presidential election.
A New York appellate court has ruled that Smartmatic's $2.7 billion lawsuit against Fox News can proceed, although some allegations against its parent company have been dismissed, as NPR reports.
Earlier, Fox News was in the spotlight for settling a significant defamation suit with election technology provider Dominion Voting Systems. This case was resolved for $787.5 million in April 2023. The lawsuit revealed internal Fox communications indicating awareness among Fox personnel that Joe Biden had duly won the election, yet misleading accusations of election fraud were still broadcast.
Smartmatic launched its own defamation action as part of a series of lawsuits surrounding the aftermath of the 2020 election fraud debate. Notably, this New York appellate court decision now allows Smartmatic to advance in its quest for restitution. This ruling does dismiss certain accusations directed towards Fox Corp, as opposed to those against the news channel itself. Nevertheless, it ensures that the case remains adversarial for Fox News.
Smartmatic's legal claim asserts that Fox personalities, such as Maria Bartiromo and the late Lou Dobbs, were involved in disseminating false information. They facilitated discussions with guests who presented baseless claims against the tech company. These claims, at times, were seemingly bolstered by the hosts' conduct during said broadcasts.
Dobbs, a prominent face in this controversy, faced consequences when he was removed from the air shortly after Smartmatic initiated its lawsuit. The move came in February 2021, indicating the immediate ripple effects of the defamation claims. As this was unfolding, Fox took a step to counterbalance the narrative by airing a segment featuring Edward Perez, a voting technology expert. This segment aimed to address some of the allegations floating in the context of voting technology and election integrity.
Fox News has been vocal in defending itself, arguing that the charges posed by Smartmatic are untenable. Furthermore, Fox insists on its commitment to defending its coverage of what it terms as significant news events. A spokesperson for Fox labeled Smartmatic's claims as not just impractical but also hinted at potential threats to constitutional speech freedoms.
In the lawsuit with Dominion, Fox's defense -- claiming to merely relay significant public claims -- did not hold. Judge Eric M. Davis had dismissed this reasoning back at the legal proceedings surrounding Dominion. As the suit with Smartmatic progresses, Fox is resolute in rebutting these allegations, vowing to fight them in court and maintain its stance on the events surrounding the contentious election coverage.
Smartmatic, through its lead attorney Erik Connolly, has communicated a clear strategy to hold Fox accountable. Connolly remarked on the New York Supreme Court’s decision as a repudiation of Fox Corporation's efforts to shirk responsibility for the defamation campaign.
Connolly emphasized Fox's failed attempts to get the case dismissed, highlighting their readiness for trial. "Smartmatic is seeking several billion in damages," Connolly noted, further stating, "We look forward to presenting our evidence at trial." Fox remains undeterred, prepared to meet the legal challenge head-on in the courtroom. The company maintains its readiness and confidence in rebuffing Smartmatic's legal arguments.
The legal road ahead for both Fox and Smartmatic is set to be a complex one, with implications reaching beyond the courtroom. The case may once again highlight the intricate balancing act of media freedoms, corporate responsibilities, and technological capabilities in the electoral process.
While the exact timetable for the trial remains uncertain, the stakes are undoubtedly high. The outcome of this case could set precedents for how media entities handle allegations of electoral significance and spotlight the accountability measures governing journalistic practices.
As this legal saga unfolds, both parties are poised for a potential climactic courtroom showdown, where each side's defense will be scrutinized under the judicial microscope.
