Photo: Andy Kropa
Fox News has now been sued for $1.6 billion, courtesy of a defamation suit launched by Dominion Voting Systems. Per NPR, the lawsuit is one of several that the voting machine company has launched against a variety of right-wing figures in recent months, all in an attempt to fight back against claims floated during the 2020 election (shudder) that the company’s machines were used to perpetrate election fraud.
Filed on Friday, the suit alleges that “Fox sold a false story of election fraud in order to serve its own commercial purposes, severely injuring Dominion in the process.” This, the company claims, led in turn to harassment and threats of violence against some of its employees, as well as huge amounts of lost profits. The suit falls in line with several others the company has issued of late, including those aimed at Donald Trump legal team members Sydney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, and, of course, The MyPillow guy. (It’s also not the only such defamation suit filed against Fox News by a voting machine company lately; Smartmatic has lodged a similar complaint, to the tune of $2.7 billion, against the network.) Dominion’s lawsuit goes so far as to lay blame for the January 6 Capitol insurrection at the network’s doorstep, alleging that its attempts to undermine the electoral process helped kick off the events of that depressing and violent day.
Fox has already issued a statement contesting the suit, stating that it’s “proud of our 2020 election coverage, which stands in the highest tradition of American journalism, and will vigorously defend against this baseless lawsuit in court.” It’s similarly moved to dismiss the Smartmatic suit—although it also abruptly canceled Lou Dobbs’ Fox Business show right around that same time, which the network has claimed was a total coincidence, and has nothing to do with Dobbs’ on-air comments being at the center of that particular suit.
114 Comments
Words matter. Burn it down.
Their defense will be the same as the social media companies: It wasn’t us, it was the lunatics we let use our platform.
It’ll be interesting to see what their defense actually is. What’s-her-name is defending herself on the grounds that no reasonable person would believe the crazy shit she was saying, which is certainly creative (that one crazy guy likewise tried to argue in a divorce proceeding that his on-air craziness was just a performance, but I don’t think that argument held up). It seems as if the plaintiffs will just have to demonstrate that a network that has news in the title knowingly presented untruths as news. And the defense will have to be either that the reports weren’t untrue, that they had no way of knowing they were untrue, or that the “news” in the company title is just figurative.
Didn’t Clucker Snarlson already use that defense for his show, or a related one, in trying to make the case that he was simply opinion or entertainment and not actual news?
That is actually a defense Fox already used in a recent lawsuit against Tucker Carlson but I don’t feel like googling to remember what.Fox News won.
Do you remember who it was against?
No but it was pretty recent, like end of last year/beginning of this one.
If they let that stand, you can say whatever you want then try to determine just how crazy a person would have to be in order to believe it. The trial would be about how to define “crazy,” not whether it was defamation.
You mean Sharon Osbourne?
“defending herself on the grounds that no reasonable person would believe the crazy shit she was saying,”That kind of reasoning HAS actually held up in court and is why Fox News qualifies most of their popular shows as “entertainment” or “opinion” instead of news. Here’s what a judge ruled in a case against Fucker Carlson: The “’general tenor’ of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary.’ “https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye
The “’general tenor’ of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary.’ The sad thing is, a judicial ruling like that would remove all credibility from any real news organization. Unfortunately that doesn’t apply in this situation.
Here’s what a judge ruled in a case against Fucker Carlson: The
“’general tenor’ of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson]
is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is
instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary.’ “
And the judge was wrong in that ruling.
Now they’re just letting people sue anyone for telling the truth*?! What a crazy world!*Note: The opinions reflected by GalvaTron Guy do not reflect the views of GalvaTron Guy Inc. who has all the monetary assets, you cannot sue us.
I’d be surprised; social media companies actually have the law behind them on that argument (the safe harbor provision), whereas the people on Fox who were lying about the election were all employed by Fox to do so.
Difference is that they didn’t just let anyone use the platform. They put them on as commentators. AVclub could get sued for what Hughes puts up, but not what you do.
That’s good news, because I have some hardcore defaming to do, and this seems like the place to do it.
Up first… Tom Hanks!
I’ll start:Tom Hanks passed on his love of music to his son by giving Chet his favorite album: 12 Inches of Snow.Tom Hanks thinks the Joss Whedon version of Justice League is better.Tom Hanks thinks a hot dog is a sandwich.
Their defense will be the same as the social media companies: It wasn’t us, it was the lunatics we let use our platform.The lunatics they platform are employees. If they try that defence, they’ll get laughed out of court.
Strangely enough, it’s the opposite argument that may work better as a defense against the actual malice standard. It’s not reckless disregard for the truth if they really believed nutty things but were merely wrong about them.
Is there a chance this could take them down, Gawker-style?
Well they have a lot more money and resources than Gawker ever did. Probably not, but it’s nice to fantasize.
But who in this case has the hulkster on their side?
/read as The Simpson’s Monorail Song
They’ve too much money on their pile!
/read as The Simpson’s Monorail Song“Is there a chance this could take them down, Gawker-style?”“Only if they hire Rudy to go the extra mile…”
♫ Is there a chance the law could bend? ♫♫ Not if George Soros is your friend! ♫
Might make them change some of the more prominent offenders’ employment statuses, but no chance of the entire station going down.Then again, even if Cucker, Lumpy or Frau Laura lose their jobs, they’ll just replace them with people even more detestable in the space of a week.
Their weekend hosts are even worse. Heaven forbid they bring those no-talent whack jobs to weeknights.
Heaven forbid they bring those no-talent whack jobs to weeknights.I like how you didn’t feel the need to lampshade the irony of that comment. Bravo.
It would be carthatic, but it doesn’t matter, the damage is done. There’s already plenty of insane right-wing news gunning to take its place, like OAN. Not only that— they are losing the most insane nut jobs on the right, nothing like seeing the conservative folks you haven’t unfriended on Facebook (out of morbid curiosity) talking about how “liberal” Fox News has gotten and how it’s just part of the “corrupt” mainstream media nowadays.
The Dominion lawsuits are having an effect on the outlets that want to dethrone Faux Noise.
They are all afraid.
Are you sure that guy was afraid of a lawsuit? Maybe he just couldn’t stomach talking to Pillow Guy for more than 90 seconds in a row?
Didn’t the angry anchor apologize and have the MyPillow asswipe on the next night?
I believe Dominion is also expected (if not already has) sued OAN and Newsmax and their pockets are nowhere as deep as Fox’s.
Replace tumbleweed with radical right:That’s how difficult it is to get rid of.
I’m afraid Peter Thiel is on their side…
no, it will be dismissed. It is publicity
I don’t think it will be dismissed. While Fox has a lot of money so does Dominion, it’s a billion dollar company and I’m sure they have decent lawyers.
Dominion has a tremendous interest in seeing this through in order to prevent FOX, AON, Newsmax, and others from pulling the same shit again. They are all but guaranteed of getting slandered or libeled again if they don’t get some kind of victory. They must think they have a decent case because if they lose it will be open season on them in the future every time a D beats an R.
no, it will be dismissed. It is publicity
Fox has a ton of money, and by itself, no. The one big risk is that discovery yields so much damaging information other parties start their own suits.Almost always these things are settled before they get far in discovery. That’s what happened with a bunch of Fox’s horrible harassment cases. It’s possible Dominion is out for blood and will see this all the way through, but probably not.
FOX (and others) spent weeks dragging Dominion through the mud both on TV and online…..it’s gonna have to be one hell of a settlement to make this go away
Remember the Disney sale involved pretty much all of Fox EXCEPT Fox “news”.
Probably not, but I was looking for some fantasy porn to end my late late Saturday night and this might do the trick!
I’ve seen pointed out that considering how fast Fox News freaked out and retracted the moment the lawsuit even became a possibility indicates that it is a very dangerous for them.
“This lawsuit is baseless! Now, for no particular reason, here are some awkward pre-recorded segments about how the election was not rigged that we’ll be airing throughout the week”
Aired in late night timeslots, bookended by MyPillow ads
This lawsuit is unlike anything they have ever handled before. This is not a private individual that might be forced to settle or go through arbitration. This complaint has a broad scope that covers the concerted efforts of the entire network. It dismantles the performative separation between news and opinion, a cornerstone of the channel’s legal defense in the past.
Kinda like when Tucker, etc. “just happen” to take vacations shortly after they do/say something particularly egregiously idiotic.
Senator Ted Cruz looks the other way…
How many such trials would be required to bankrupt it ?Also shouldn’t there be one for every each racist murder in the USA ?
My Grandma always said, “if you fuck with people’s money, they’ll leave you alone”.Now fox “news” is getting fucked. You love to see it.
2001- Bush wins, Republicans assure brand new voting machine technology with no paper trail or oversite perfectly secure.2021- Biden wins, Republicans blame voting machines.
2000: AFTER the owner of said voting machine company promised to deliver Republican votes in battleground states:
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/business/machine-politics-in-the-digital-age.htmlNever forget. The Republican party always accuses their enemies of the things they have already done themselves.
Never forget. The Republican party always accuses their enemies of the things they have already done themselves.Including using this line of reasoning. I’ve seen so many GOP shitbags claim that this is what “tHE LeFt” does.
Fox has already issued a statement contesting the suit, stating that it’s “proud of our 2020 election coverage, which stands in the highest tradition of American journalism…”Poe’s Law is in full effect here.
They’re sure to employ the same “no one is stupid enough to believe us” defense that has worked against previous lawsuits.
Legally, there is zero chance of any of these suits being successful against the press. If the press reports on what other people say, even if it is later proven to be false, you cannot win. Under the law you need to prove malice, or that the press actually knew it was false when they reported it. Even if you think it is ridiculous or “everyone should have known” that still is not legal malice.
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. Sorry you’re upset your news channel of choice is being sued.
Actually, I do this for a living and I just stated what the law is
Cool then you should have no problem supplying a source.
NYT v. Sullivan
And this is why you’re wrong. “The decision further held that even with the proper safeguards, the evidence presented in the case was insufficient to support a judgment for Sullivan. In sum, the court ruled that “the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with the knowledge that they are false) or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.”[17]The decision allowed newspapers more freedom to report on the widespread chaos and police abuse during the Civil Rights Movement.”These cases are very different. This is a business, not a public official, suing a news company who purposely and repeatedly made false claims with malice. Causing harm to the business over election fraud that had lost in court multiple times. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
LOL I cannot debate someone who has no idea what they are talking about. It is impossible to prove malice and it makes zero difference if it is a “business”. The first amendment protects everyone.You guys are like some bro arguing medicine with a doctor.
Everyone here is wrong, but you eh? Dude we can see your trolling comment history you moron.But I guess you know the truth EVERYONE can’t see –
Saying what the law is is not trolling, dummy
Plessy vs. Ferguson. Marbury vs. Madison. Liebeck vs McDonalds.See? I can cite Supreme Court decisions that are irrelevant too.You keep conflating a corporate person with a “public figure.” That ain’t gonna fly. Without that fig leaf, all you have to prove is that it was wrong. Malice or depraved indifference to the truth would be a sweet bonus, but it’s not necessary for winning a Big-Ass Judgment in this case.
Playing that bonus round probably wouldn’t win me a Supreme Court justice, but for a jury trial I’d rub Fox News’ figurative nose in that shit so hard, and so often, that I’d extract an eye-watering judgment for it. These cowboys are so fucked.
Your cited precedent doesn’t reinforce your case, counselor.
So, what about full stops? Are they a legal requirement?
Is this about two spaces after a full stop? Because I’ll irrationally defend that until the day I die.Either way, I appreciate the name/comment synchronicity.
What exactly do you do for a living?
If we’re very very lucky he’s a lawyer for Fox News
What exactly do you do for a living?
They comment online, telling others they have a job.
Fox hosts, that is, employees, made these claims. OANanism slammed shut like a clam when they got the letter as did Faux, so whatever part of the law you feel is going to save them doesn’t apply here.
You make comments on the internet for a living? Can you . . . can you get me a job?
Actually, I do this for a living
No, you don’t.
I just stated what the law is
Then why were you wrong?
“I do this for a living and I just stated what the law is”Then why did you say they have to prove “malice” instead of “actual malice”?
Fox News was saying the voting machines were comprised in their attempt to push the story of a fraudulent Presidential election. Even though court after court threw out all of Trump’s cases alleging voter fraud, Fox News continued to push this story. The Courts said the election wasn’t stolen, which means Fox News DID know what they were saying was false. The members of Fox News that kept saying the voting machines were rigged were all devout Republicans. They kept saying the voting machines were rigged only in the states that the Republican incumbent needed to win in order to win the election. I think one could easily point to those facts and make the argument that the lie they were telling their viewers was one of malice.
Interviewing people who make claims is not the same as FOX saying so. Also it depends on when the courts ruled. If they stopped after courts ruled that there was no voter fraud, that is worse for them than if they said so before. Suing the press is almost impossible as you have to prove they said it and they knew it was false.
Ah, but Timmy … several of Fox’s employed barking heads were making those claims. Repeatedly. After they had been definitively disproved in a court of law.
Unless you want to argue that because Fox and its barking heads slandered Dominion Voting and Smartmatic to the point that it somehow made those corporate persons “public figures,” defaming them with false information is more than sufficient. Hope you enjoy dancing on the head of that pin.
And if you really want to try arguing that multiple Fox news personalities, employed by the company and speaking on the company’s provided platform, repeatedly, is somehow not the same as FOX saying so, you should pick this case up. And go down in flames with whichever Murdoch kids are running the news network today.
Good luck with that.
Isn’t their go-to defence “Ah, yes, but see, on my show, I’m playing a CHARACTER and no reasonable person could ever think what I’m saying is true!”
Maybe. But slander isn’t mitigated by its “Own the Libs” entertainment value.
Maybe if they all start dressing like the clowns they are, they could palm this off as parody. ‘Cause the Morton Downey Jr. schtick they’re using now ain’t gonna get a pass.
Fox News anchors made these claims, people the network employs. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
I didn’t say it was the people being interviewed, or the people who call in claiming it was all rigged. It was the literal anchors, the people who work FOR the network on camera pushing the narrative of a fraudulent election which was caused by the Democrats rigging the voting machines.Secondly, Fox News was running with this angle all the way up to December 21st. Before that date, Trump had lost somewhere between 45-50 lawsuits trying to overturn the election in various states.
comments made by News journalists, such as Eric Shawn and Tucker Carlson, made it clear that Fox didn’t have any evidence to support Powell’s and Giuliani’s claims.For instance, in November, Carlson said that Powell “never sent us any evidence, despite a lot of polite requests. When we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her.”-from CNBC
For instance, in November, Carlson said that Powell “never sent us any evidence, despite a lot of polite requests. When we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her.”Do you know what a curate’s egg is? Just because Tucker Carlson made some vague statement that was not defamatory doesn’t mean he’s somehow shielded from being liable for future/previous defamatory statements.
If they stopped after courts ruled that there was no voter fraudThey didn’t.
It wasn’t just the people they were interviewing*. The hosts of their biggest shows like Carlson, Hannity, and Ingraham were also making the claims. They devoted entire hours to what they dubbed “the big lie” and the idea that Dominion was throwing out votes. It wasn’t even allusions, they said it pointblank. This lawsuit has been rumored for months and Carlson got concerned enough that he corrected himself in some half-ass attempt at putting the toothpaste back in its tube.
*And even if it was only those, they could have easily ended the interview when they went off the rails or issued some kind of statement/correction distancing Fox News from those claims… But they didn’t.
Interviewing people who make claims is not the same as FOX saying so.
Tucker Carlson & Sean Hannity looking right into the camera when not interviewing anyone is Fox saying so, you stupid fucking twatwaffle.
The Dominion machines weren’t used in something like 98% of the counties that Fox News reporters and hosts were claiming had fraudulent returns. It was literally impossible for Dominion to have done what they are accused of.
There is no way of saying that unless you know the facts. The only thing you know is that the bar is high to win.The case will depend in part on what steps Dominion took to warn Fox that it was wrong and in part on what Fox did after that notification. We don’t know everything Dominion did, and we definitely don’t know what steps Fox took after it was informed.
Dominion at a minimum appears to be in a good place to push claims for discovery and avoid summary dismissal. Whether they can uncover further proof through discovery and justify economic damages remains to be seen. As I said, the bar is high. But Fox dumping Lou Dobbs is a sign they may be worried he and his producers blew through some obvious stoplights.Of course, the most likely result is Fox settles on undisclosed terms, so we probably won’t know if it is for chicken feed or a serious settlement. Dominion’s business has been trashed, so they may be eager for any payout, so even a settlement may not be a sign of the merits of the case. But again, we really can’t know now, and may well never know.
Dominion’s still a profitable company that is doing well. It’s company is not trashed.
Dun and Bradstreet estimates revenues (not profits) for 2021 at only $41 million and Dominion has cited in its lawsuits already losing $110 million in contracts, and the potential for more from GOP dominated state and local governments is looming. Maybe they’re sitting on a giant pile of cash but they have good grounds for arguing that this will, in fact, trash their business.
Oh the public perception factor is definitely grounds for a lawsuit. They have still profited though and are not trashed so far. They are reliant on government contracts and stuff so if their public perception is tarnished enough they may not get these or other contacts going forward. It’s an entirely valid response especially with all those Trump court cases being struck down across the country.
Our local county commissioners (all red) – adjacent to the same county from which Dominion’s systems originally came from just voided a recommendation by the local board of elections to buy Dominion machines. Just one county, but it hurts. Esp if it’s happening in other places.
Under the law you need to prove malice, or that (sic) the press actually knew it was false when they reported it. Good thing Dominion can make a valid case for *both* of those.
Legally, there is zero chance of any of these suits being successful against the press.
I expect Dominion’s very expensive, very capable lawyers to take similar actions against Newsmax and OANN very shortly. Neither of those two can afford a protracted legal battle and sizeable settlement/court award.
I thought they already did this w/Newsmax and OAN, and that’s why they’ve been running retractions
Pretty sure it’s just been rather loud announcements of “we’re considering all legal options” thusfar, which has been more than enough to scare them shitless
Dominion sent out a bunch of Cease and Desist letters early on. The smart people/organizations (relatively speaking) wrote retractions or at least STFU about the subject.The stupid ones (objectively speaking) like Sydney Powell, Rudy Guiliani, and Fox News, kept peddling the same bullshit, and are now defending 10-figure lawsuits.
That was because of Smartmatic’s threat of legal action. They haven’t been served by Dominion as yet.
Didn’t this already happen months ago?
No. They sued that crackpot Sidney lawyer lady and Rudy G.
Why aren’t they going for the Orange Prick who should not be named?
I think Trump has always been too cluelessly vague to call out Dominion directly. He always makes general, non-disprovable claims like: “There were problems with the voting machines! I won Georgia by a big margin except for the stolen votes. In fact, I won every state!”This is one of those situations where Trump’s laziness and stupidity actually work to his advantage.
Considering how much Fox sold off some of their entertainment products to Disney, I think they can afford paying Dominion 1.6 billion.
Fox has already issued a statement contesting the suit, stating that it’s “proud of our 2020 election coverage, which stands in the highest tradition of American journalismThe funniest part of that statement is that Trump is still pissed off that Fox News called Arizona for Biden.You know each night before he goes to bed he spends at least five minutes thinking about it and mumbling curses to himself.
I haven’t really tried to look into it yet, but does anyone know where they come up with these lawsuit financial numbers (ie $1.6 bil, $2.7 bil, $1.4 bil, ect..)? $1.6 bil for Fox kinda makes more sense, being a huge corporate entity, but suing Guiliani, Powell, & MyDildo for those crazy amounts seems arbitrary and obviously uncollectable.Is it scare tactic or a kind of high bid negotiation % thing? Also, are Dominion suing for all future company profit losses for like the next 20+ years?
Isn’t the goal to make sure that they are wiped out? Sure, Giuliani may not have a billion here or there, but he may have property and stocks, and if his actions killed Dominion’s earning ability, I’d surely want some serious revenge.
That’s true.. force them to liquidate everything. Or at least tie them up in court forever to the point of ruin or settlement.
The money is close to immaterial to Dominion. There’s no amount of money that will make them whole, and even if there were it would never arrive in time to do them any good. They need to people to say that they are wrong. To that end they need a number high enough that no plausible settlement offer will look like reasonable compensation.