In a pivotal court hearing this week, attorneys for the voting technology firm Smartmatic presented a stark accusation: that top executives at Fox News orchestrated a deliberate shift in coverage to amplify baseless claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election. The alleged motive was to recapture an audience of conservative viewers who had turned away from the network.
The company’s lawyer argued before a New York judge that after Fox News faced backlash for its election night reporting, leadership authorized a return to what he termed a core strategy of misinformation. The false narrative of a stolen election, he contended, became the chosen vehicle to re-engage its pro-Trump base.
Fox News representatives vehemently denied these allegations. In their rebuttal, the network’s legal team dismissed the claims as fabricated and unsupported by evidence. They maintained that Fox was simply reporting on newsworthy allegations made at the time by figures associated with the former president, not endorsing them. The network further argued that Smartmatic has grossly exaggerated the financial damages it claims to have suffered.
The hearing centered on requests from both sides for the judge to decide key legal questions ahead of a potential trial. Smartmatic seeks a ruling that Fox acted with “actual malice,” a high legal bar requiring proof that the network knowingly broadcast false statements or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The judge indicated that granting such a request would be a “hard sell,” noting he would review all relevant broadcasts before making a decision.
This legal battle echoes a previous high-profile defamation suit brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox, which resulted in a substantial settlement. In that case, pre-trial rulings that found Fox’s statements were false and defamatory were seen as critically weakening the network’s position.
The judge presiding over the Smartmatic case stated he would issue rulings after a thorough review of the extensive court filings and evidence. The outcome of these pre-trial motions could significantly shape the trajectory of the lawsuit and determine whether the dispute proceeds to a jury trial next year.