A legal battle between Dominion Voting Systems and Fox Corporation continues to heat up. Both sides argue in court whether top Fox executives, including Chairman Rupert Murdoch, should be held responsible in the $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News. The lawsuit stems from false claims made by Fox News in 2020 that Dominion’s voting machines were used to rig the U.S. presidential election against Donald Trump and in favor of Joe Biden.
During a two-day hearing in Delaware, Dominion accused Fox of destroying its business by airing these false claims and argued that top Fox executives, including Murdoch, should be held liable for the defamatory statements made on Fox News. Dominion’s lawyers argued that evidence collected during the case’s discovery phase, including emails, shows that Fox executives did not believe the claims but aired them anyway in pursuit of ratings.
Fox’s lawyers, however, argued that executives, including Murdoch, were not directly involved in the allegedly defamatory television appearances of Trump’s lawyers. They claimed that Dominion needed to bring it home to someone directly involved in these claims’ publication. Fox’s lawyers also invoked the legal doctrine of “neutral reportage” doctrine, which holds that the press cannot be held liable for neutrally publishing newsworthy allegations.
The judge, Eric Davis, wrapped up the hearing without ruling on requests by either side to decide elements of the case in their favor before a full trial. Both sides seek summary judgment – asking the judge to decide the case in their favor before it goes to a jury trial. The trial is scheduled to start on April 17, and it is one of the most closely watched defamation cases involving a major U.S. media organization in years.
Make hiring a breeze – trust BCG Attorney Search to find the best candidates for your firm.
Dominion maintains that Fox knowingly spread false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth, thereby meeting the “actual malice” standard necessary to win a defamation case. They argue that Fox’s coverage ruined their business. On the other hand, Fox’s lawyers argue that the claims were newsworthy and that the legal doctrine of “neutral reportage” applies.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the media industry, particularly in how media companies report on controversial topics and are held accountable for the information they disseminate. As the legal battle between Dominion and Fox Corporation continues, the media industry and the public will watch closely to see how it unfolds.