Murdochs approve Fox News plan to broadcast 2020 election fraud claims, Smartmatic claims

Lawyers for the voting technology firm Smartmatic claimed on Tuesday that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch approved a strategy for Fox News to promote Donald Trumps unfounded election fraud allegations from 2020 in an effort to regain viewers who were upset with the network.

Conservative viewers, who are their core audience, had turned away, attorney J. Erik Connolly told New York State Supreme Court Judge David B. Cohen. Their solution was to return to familiar territory: disinformation, pro-Trump messaging, and xenophobic rhetoric. The election fraud narrative was the ideal channel to reconnect with their base.

During afternoon proceedings in a Manhattan courtroom, both parties requested that the judge rule on critical elements of Smartmatics $2.7 billion defamation suit against Fox before a potential trial next year. Connolly reiterated the companys long-standing claim: Fox executives devised a plan to pivot toward amplifying Trumps claims of a stolen election to regain pro-Trump viewers, particularly after the network called Arizona for Joe Biden on election night.

K. Winn Allen, representing Fox News, strongly denied the allegations against the Murdochs. No disinformation campaign was ever directed, he said. These claims are baseless and unsupported by evidence. They are fabrications from the opposing lawyers. Allen emphasized that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, then serving as chair and executive chair of Fox Corporation, did not instruct anyone to cover Smartmatic or the election fraud allegations.

In depositions, Rupert Murdoch, who stepped down as chair two years ago, and Lachlan Murdoch, who continues as executive chair and CEO, both denied encouraging Fox News to broadcast claims of election fraud.

To succeed, Smartmatic must demonstrate that key Fox figures knew the election fraud claims aired on the networkby hosts and guestswere false but permitted them to be broadcast anyway. Smartmatic submitted motions citing internal communications where employees expressed skepticism about the fraud claims and criticized figures like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, who were frequently mentioned during broadcasts. Internal emails also showed hosts such as Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo expressing intent to support Trump.

Allen, in his 45-minute argument, contended that Smartmatic exaggerated its financial losses and projected future damages unrealistically. Fox has maintained that its hosts were merely reporting newsworthy allegations from Trumps associates, not endorsing them to harm Smartmatics business. This lawsuit is less about Foxs 2020 election coverage and more about Smartmatic trying to capitalize on comments from the presidents lawyers to sustain its finances, Allen said.

Smartmatic requested multiple pre-trial rulings but affirmed that a jury should ultimately determine the damages. Judge Cohen provided no indication of his leanings but warned that proving actual malicethat Fox knew the claims were false or likely falsewould be difficult. He noted that he would review all relevant broadcasts before issuing rulings, stating, I have more than enough information, briefings, charts, graphs, and everything I need to make my decision.

Smartmatics arguments resemble those made by Dominion Voting Systems in its own defamation case against Fox. In that instance, a Delaware judge ruled that Foxs statements were false and inherently defamatory, which played a significant role in Foxs $787.5 million settlement in April 2023 to avoid trial. Viet D. Dinh, Foxs former chief legal officer, said the pre-trial rulings limited the networks ability to succeed at trial, although the company remained confident it could have prevailed on appeal.

Author: Sophia Brooks