Dominion Over Fox News: An Analysis of Dominion Voting v. Fox News Network
Settled! On April 18, 2023, Fox News agreed to a $787.5 million settlement to avoid going to trial to defend itself against Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation claims.[1] The defamation lawsuit of Dominion v. Fox New Network has been a series of motions to dismiss, denials, and appeals. After the 2020 election, Fox News, and numerous other sources, made unsubstantiated claims of election fraud. Dominion Voting Systems was pulled into the fray, with claims of machine technology that could flip votes.[2] Fox maintains the broadcasting company and its television personalities were merely reporting on claims made by others and not presenting the false statements about Dominion and its voting machines as fact. However, courts refused to dismiss the case, and it was scheduled to head into the courtroom on April 17, 2023. [3] However, there was a final day-long delay, and the two parties reached an agreement. Settlement Terms: No apology necessary.
Fox News does not need to admit fault. Rupert Murdoch does not need to testify. Any further embarrassing evidence will not be thrown to the public for consumption. Dominion can enjoy a night off. However, lawyers will continue their work on the lawsuits against Newsmax, OAN, Mike Lindell (CEO of MyPillow), Patrick Byrne (founder of Overstock.com), Rudy Giuliani, and Sidney Powell.[4]
Dominion wanted $1.6 billion, but how did they justify the request? The alleged harm was found in the death threats employees received, money spent on private security for employees, and money spent mitigating the viral disinformation campaign.[5] Additionally, Dominion’s actual customers, election officials, received demands to avoid contracting with the company.[6] Dominion alleges a projected “lost profit of $600 million over the next eight years,” basing its projection on the contracts already lost and bid processes cancelled.[7]
Dominion claimed that in airing tv segments with Maria Bartiromo, Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro, Sidney Powell, Rudolph Giuliani, and Mike Lindell, Fox damaged Dominion’s reputation.[8] Despite hand audit recounts in Georgia and Arizona, Fox personalities continued to claim that Dominion had helped now-President Biden get elected. [9] They made claims about “an algorithm that shaved off votes from Trump and awarded them to Biden.”[10] The complaint includes many other examples, but importantly, it alleged that the “fair report” privilege is limited to “actual, accurate reports about a specific government proceeding.”[11]
In the case, Dominion would have had to prove that Fox News published false statements with “actual malice,” a standard laid out in the Supreme Court case, New York Times v. Sullivan. The “actual malice” standard requires that a public official must prove the publisher made the statement knowing that it was false or with reckless disregard of its truth.[12] Soon after the Sullivan decision, the Supreme Court extended the actual malice standard to “public figures” in Gertz v. Robert Welch, defining a “public figure” as a person or entity of such “fame or notoriety that [they are] public figure[s] for all purposes and in all contexts.[13] Even if Dominion would not fall into the public figure category in “all contexts,” Gertz extended its reach to a person of entity that has become a public figure because of their involvement in an issue of public concern.[14] Thus, Dominion would had to have shown that Fox News knew the statements it shared about Dominion’s voting machines were false or at least recklessly ignored the fact that the statements were false.
The case was set to go to trial on April 17, then was pushed to April 18.[15]In the ruling from Delaware Judge Eric Davis, Dominion Voting Systems proved that Fox News aired false statements about the company and their voting machines, but they had failed to meet the “actual malice” standard.[16] The evidence provided included, as often is the case, depositions, internal emails, and text messages between prominent figures at Fox, including Rupert Murdoch. The information made public has shone light on the inner workings of Fox News, an unwelcome side effect of continuing to litigate. Internal awareness of the false claims appeared obvious, evidenced by the text and emails between employees mocking the claims, even saying “It’s a stupid story but this is all the viewers are into right now.”[17] Nevertheless, Fox News decided to settle in the final hour, and the public will never get to see Rupert Murdoch or the Fox stars on the witness stand. They simply get to see the $787.5 million figure headline for awhile.
Footnotes
