Ibossumind

Newsmax Agrees to $67 Million Settlement in Defamation Case Over 2020 Election Claims

—

by

S Haynes
in , , ,

Newsmax Agrees to $67 Million Settlement in Defamation Case Over 2020 Election Claims

Conservative network settles with Dominion Voting Systems, marking another significant legal challenge following similar actions against other media outlets.

In a significant development for the media landscape and ongoing discussions surrounding the 2020 U.S. presidential election, the conservative television network Newsmax has agreed to pay $67 million to settle a defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems. The lawsuit accused Newsmax of spreading false claims that the company’s voting machines were rigged to alter the outcome of the 2020 election, an accusation that has been widely debunked.

This settlement follows a similar, high-profile case in which Fox News Channel paid $787.5 million in 2023 to settle a defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion. Newsmax itself had previously settled a libel lawsuit for $40 million with Smartmatic, another voting technology company that was a target of similar conspiracy theories promoted on the network.

The agreement between Newsmax and Dominion was disclosed by Newsmax in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Monday, indicating that the deal was reached on the preceding Friday. A spokesperson for Dominion expressed satisfaction with the resolution.

The settlement emerged as former President Donald Trump continued to voice his unsubstantiated claims about the 2020 election. On Monday, Trump posted on social media about his intention to eliminate mail-in ballots and voting machines, including those supplied by Dominion and other manufacturers. The practicalities of such a directive remain unclear.

Context & Background

The legal troubles for Newsmax and other media outlets stem from the widespread dissemination of conspiracy theories alleging widespread fraud in the 2020 election. These theories, often amplified by pro-Trump media personalities and guests, targeted voting machine companies like Dominion and Smartmatic, suggesting their technology was used to manipulate vote counts in favor of Democrat Joe Biden, who ultimately won the election.

Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis played a pivotal role in these legal proceedings. In the case against Newsmax, Judge Davis had previously ruled that the network had indeed defamed Dominion by airing false information about the company and its equipment. However, the question of whether this defamation was committed with malice—a key element in defamation cases involving public figures—and the specific amount of damages remained for a jury to decide. Newsmax and Dominion opted to settle before a trial could commence, thereby avoiding a potentially protracted legal battle and further public scrutiny of the evidence.

This situation mirrors the legal context of the Fox News defamation case. Judge Davis, who also presided over that case, found it to be “CRYSTAL clear” that the allegations of election fraud were untrue, particularly given the network’s internal communications that indicated executives were aware the claims were baseless. The evidence presented in both cases has shed light on the internal workings and decision-making processes within these media organizations concerning their coverage of the election.

In-Depth Analysis

The settlement highlights the significant financial and reputational risks associated with the propagation of unsubstantiated claims, particularly in the realm of election integrity. Internal communications revealed as part of these lawsuits suggest that some Newsmax employees were aware that the allegations of election fraud were not supported by evidence.

For instance, according to internal documents cited in the lawsuit, Newsmax host Bob Sellers questioned the network’s continued promotion of election fraud narratives just two days after the election was called for Joe Biden, stating, “How long are we going to play along with election fraud?” This sentiment indicates internal dissent or at least questioning of the coverage within the organization.

Furthermore, the documents revealed that Newsmax saw a potential business advantage in appealing to viewers who believed Donald Trump had won the election. This suggests a strategic decision to cater to a specific audience segment, potentially prioritizing viewership and engagement over factual accuracy. This motivation is not unique to Newsmax; similar insights emerged from private communications in the earlier Dominion case against Fox News, which also demonstrated how business interests influenced coverage decisions regarding the 2020 election claims.

Employees at Newsmax reportedly issued repeated warnings against false allegations made by pro-Trump guests, such as attorney Sidney Powell, who was a prominent proponent of election fraud theories. Even Newsmax owner Chris Ruddy, known as a Trump ally, expressed concern in a private text message, describing it as “scary” that Trump was meeting with Powell. These communications paint a picture of an environment where factual reporting was at odds with the network’s editorial direction and audience engagement strategies.

Dominion Voting Systems became a central focus of many of the conspiracy theories, with guests on Newsmax and other platforms promoting elaborate narratives, including one involving the deceased Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, to suggest the machines were rigged. Despite former President Trump’s continued insistence on the reality of his fraud claims, comprehensive investigations and numerous court cases have found no evidence of widespread fraud that would have altered the election outcome. In fact, then-Attorney General William Barr stated that the Department of Justice had found no evidence of widespread fraud. Moreover, dozens of lawsuits filed by Trump and his supporters challenging the election results were dismissed, often by judges appointed by Trump himself. Multiple recounts, reviews, and audits conducted by both parties, including those led by Republicans, consistently affirmed Joe Biden’s victory without uncovering significant wrongdoing or error.

The legal challenges have also intersected with political actions. Following his return to office, Trump issued pardons to individuals involved in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, an event aimed at disrupting the peaceful transfer of power. He also directed the Department of Justice to investigate Chris Krebs, a former Trump cybersecurity appointee who had affirmed the security and accuracy of the 2020 election. Separately, as an initial trial date approached in the Dominion case against Fox News, Trump issued an executive order targeting the law firm Susman Godfrey, which was litigating both the Dominion and Fox cases. Trump’s order, framed as part of a broader effort against firms he had legal disputes with, cited their work on elections and stated that the government would cease doing business with their clients and ban their staff from federal buildings. A federal judge later blocked this action, deeming it a “shocking abuse of power” from the perspective of the U.S. Constitution’s framers.

Pros and Cons

Pros of the Settlement:

  • Resolution for Dominion: The settlement provides a financial resolution for Dominion Voting Systems, acknowledging the reputational damage and legal costs incurred due to the false claims. It offers a measure of vindication for the company.
  • Avoidance of Further Litigation Costs: For Newsmax, settling avoids the considerable expense and uncertainty of a protracted trial, including potential appeals.
  • Reduced Legal Risk: By settling, Newsmax avoids a judicial determination of malice, which could have had further legal implications.
  • Precedent for Accountability: This settlement, following the Fox News case, continues to set a precedent for accountability for media organizations that broadcast defamatory content.

Cons of the Settlement:

  • Financial Burden: The $67 million settlement represents a substantial financial outlay for Newsmax, impacting its financial stability and resources.
  • Acknowledgement of Wrongdoing (Implied): While settlements often do not admit guilt, the large sum paid implicitly acknowledges the seriousness of the allegations and the potential for a negative outcome if the case had gone to trial.
  • Continued Debate Over Election Integrity: While the courts have largely dismissed widespread fraud claims, settlements like these do not necessarily end the public debate or alter the beliefs of those who continue to adhere to these narratives.
  • Potential for Future Similar Claims: The existence of such claims and subsequent settlements may embolden other parties to pursue similar legal actions against media outlets.

Key Takeaways

  • Newsmax has agreed to pay $67 million to settle a defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion Voting Systems over false claims about the 2020 election.
  • This settlement follows a similar $787.5 million settlement by Fox News Channel with Dominion and a $40 million settlement by Newsmax with Smartmatic, another voting technology company.
  • Internal documents revealed during the legal proceedings suggest that some Newsmax employees were aware that the election fraud claims being aired were baseless.
  • The settlement was disclosed via an SEC filing by Newsmax and reached before a trial could determine malice and damages.
  • The case highlights the legal and financial consequences for media outlets that broadcast defamatory content, particularly concerning election integrity.
  • Numerous court cases, recounts, and audits have consistently found no evidence of widespread fraud sufficient to alter the 2020 election results.

Future Outlook

The settlement between Newsmax and Dominion Voting Systems underscores a continuing trend of legal accountability for media organizations that disseminate unsubstantiated claims. Following the substantial settlements reached by Fox News and now Newsmax, it is plausible that other media outlets that amplified similar narratives may face increased legal scrutiny or similar legal challenges. The legal precedents established by these cases may embolden entities that believe they have been defamed to pursue litigation.

Furthermore, the revelations about internal awareness of the falsity of election fraud claims within these organizations could lead to greater demands for transparency and journalistic integrity from the public and regulatory bodies. The financial settlements also serve as a stark reminder of the economic risks associated with prioritizing sensationalism or catering to specific political viewpoints over factual reporting.

The ongoing debate surrounding election integrity is likely to persist, but the outcomes of these defamation lawsuits may contribute to a more cautious approach by some media outlets in their coverage of such sensitive and legally charged topics. It remains to be seen whether this will lead to a broader shift towards more rigorous fact-checking and a clearer distinction between opinion and verifiable fact in political broadcasting.

Call to Action

Understanding the complexities of media responsibility and the impact of misinformation is crucial for an informed citizenry. We encourage readers to seek out diverse and credible news sources, critically evaluate the information they consume, and support journalistic organizations that prioritize accuracy and ethical reporting. For further information and context on election integrity and legal proceedings related to the 2020 election, consider consulting the following official resources:

Comments

Leave a Reply