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

Conservative Network Settles with Dominion Voting Systems, Acknowledging Falsehoods Aired

In a significant development in the ongoing legal battles stemming from the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, conservative media outlet Newsmax has agreed to pay $67 million to settle a defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion Voting Systems. The lawsuit accused Newsmax of broadcasting false claims that questioned the integrity of the company’s voting machines and contributed to widespread misinformation about the election’s outcome.

The settlement, disclosed in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, marks the latest instance of a major media organization facing substantial financial repercussions for its coverage of the 2020 election. This agreement follows a similar case in which Fox News Channel paid $787.5 million to settle a defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems in 2023. Newsmax itself had previously settled a libel lawsuit for $40 million with Smartmatic, another voting machine manufacturer targeted by pro-Trump conspiracy theories.

The legal proceedings against Newsmax were bolstered by a ruling from Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis, who had previously determined that Newsmax had indeed defamed Dominion Voting Systems. Judge Davis found that the network aired false information concerning the company and its equipment. While the judge left the determination of whether these actions were taken with malice and the amount of damages to a jury, Newsmax and Dominion reached a settlement before the trial could commence.

Introduction

The $67 million settlement between Newsmax and Dominion Voting Systems represents a pivotal moment in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. It underscores the legal and financial consequences for media outlets that amplify unsubstantiated claims of election fraud. This agreement not only brings a close to a protracted legal dispute but also reflects a broader trend of accountability for journalistic practices that disseminate misinformation, particularly concerning democratic processes. The settlement highlights the critical role of factual reporting and the potential ramifications of failing to uphold journalistic standards when reporting on sensitive and politically charged topics.

Context & Background

The 2020 U.S. Presidential election, which saw Democrat Joe Biden defeat incumbent Republican Donald Trump, was followed by widespread claims of widespread fraud, largely propagated by President Trump and his allies. These claims, which included allegations of rigged voting machines, mail-in ballot irregularities, and other forms of manipulation, were extensively covered by various media outlets. Many of these claims focused on voting technology companies like Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic, which asserted that their reputations and businesses were damaged by these false narratives.

Dominion Voting Systems, a company that provides electronic voting hardware and software, became a central figure in many of these conspiracy theories. Allegations, often amplified by conservative media, suggested that Dominion machines were programmed to switch votes from Trump to Biden or were connected to foreign adversaries. These claims were frequently promoted by guests and, at times, by hosts on networks such as Newsmax.

Newsmax, a conservative news channel, was a significant platform for many of these unsubstantiated narratives. The network’s coverage of the 2020 election, particularly its promotion of claims made by President Trump’s legal team and allies, drew scrutiny and ultimately led to defamation lawsuits from Dominion and Smartmatic. The network, which saw business opportunities in catering to a segment of the electorate that believed the election was stolen, found itself embroiled in legal battles that threatened its credibility and financial stability.

The legal standard for defamation in the United States requires a plaintiff to prove that a defendant made a false statement of fact about the plaintiff, published that statement to a third party, and that the statement caused harm. In cases involving public figures or matters of public concern, such as election fraud claims, the plaintiff must also prove that the statement was made with “actual malice” – meaning the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was false.

Judge Eric Davis played a significant role in these legal proceedings. In the case involving Fox News and Dominion, he had previously ruled that the network repeated numerous lies about the 2020 loss, despite internal communications indicating that Fox officials were aware the claims were false. His finding that it was “CRYSTAL clear” that none of the allegations were true set a precedent for subsequent cases.

Internal communications from Newsmax, revealed as part of the legal discovery process, indicated that some employees within the network recognized the baseless nature of the election fraud claims. For instance, Newsmax host Bob Sellers expressed concern about the network’s continued airing of such allegations, questioning, “How long are we going to play along with election fraud?” These internal communications suggested a conflict between journalistic integrity and the pursuit of audience engagement by catering to viewers who believed in the election fraud narrative.

The pressure on Newsmax and other outlets to settle these lawsuits intensified as evidence emerged of internal awareness regarding the falsity of the claims being aired. The financial repercussions from the Fox News settlement, in particular, served as a stark warning. The ultimate settlement with Dominion Voting Systems for $67 million signifies a capitulation to the legal pressure and a recognition of the potential damages that can arise from the dissemination of misinformation.

In-Depth Analysis

The Legal Basis for the Settlement

The defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Newsmax centered on the allegation that the conservative network broadcasted false statements about the company’s role in the 2020 election. These statements, often aired by guests and amplified through the network’s programming, alleged that Dominion machines were manipulated to ensure Joe Biden’s victory. According to Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis, there was sufficient evidence to establish that Newsmax did indeed defame Dominion by airing these false narratives.

The critical element in defamation cases involving public concern is proving “actual malice.” This means the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The discovery process in these cases often unearths internal communications that shed light on the knowledge and intent of media organizations. In the case of Newsmax, as with Fox News, internal documents reportedly indicated that some personnel within the network were aware that the election fraud claims being aired were unsubstantiated.

For example, the source material mentions a text from Newsmax host Bob Sellers expressing his reservations about the network’s continued airing of election fraud claims, stating, “How long are we going to play along with election fraud?” Such communications, if made available to the court, can serve as compelling evidence of awareness of the falsity of the claims, a key component of proving actual malice.

The settlement amount of $67 million reflects the significant financial exposure Newsmax faced. While the full details of the settlement agreement are not publicly available beyond the reported sum, it is typical for such agreements to include a financial payout in exchange for the cessation of legal action and, often, a statement or implication of an end to the disputed coverage.

The timing of the settlement is also noteworthy. It occurred shortly before a potential trial, where evidence, including internal communications and the network’s broadcast content, would have been presented to a jury. The prospect of a public trial, coupled with the significant financial damages that could have been awarded, likely influenced Newsmax’s decision to settle. The precedent set by the Fox News settlement, which resulted in a $787.5 million payout, would have loomed large in these considerations.

Newsmax’s Business Interests and Coverage Decisions

The source material suggests that Newsmax’s coverage decisions were influenced, at least in part, by business considerations. By catering to viewers who believed that the 2020 election was stolen, the network may have seen an opportunity to attract and retain a specific audience segment. The summary notes that “Newsmax took pride that it was not calling the election for Biden and, the internal documents show, saw a business opportunity in catering to viewers who believed Trump won.”

This insight into potential motivations raises broader questions about the intersection of journalism, political advocacy, and commercial interests. When media outlets prioritize audience acquisition and engagement through the dissemination of controversial or unverified narratives, it can create a conflict with their responsibility to provide accurate and balanced reporting. The discovery of internal communications that reveal an awareness of the falsity of claims being aired, alongside discussions of business opportunities, paints a picture of a calculated approach to content creation that prioritized viewership over factual accuracy.

The source also points to a parallel with the business interests of Fox News, as revealed in private communications from Dominion’s earlier case against Fox. This suggests a commonality in how some media organizations navigated the coverage of election fraud claims, where business imperatives may have played a significant role in editorial decisions.

The Role of Internal Warnings and Executive Views

The lawsuit’s discovery process reportedly uncovered instances where employees within Newsmax expressed concerns about the veracity of the claims being aired. The summary mentions that “employees repeatedly warned against false allegations from pro-Trump guests such as attorney Sidney Powell.” Sidney Powell, a prominent lawyer associated with President Trump’s legal challenges, was a vocal proponent of extensive conspiracy theories regarding the 2020 election. Her claims, often aired on various networks, were widely debunked.

Even Newsmax owner Chris Ruddy, described as a Trump ally, is cited as having found it “scary” that Trump was meeting with Powell. Such internal dissent and expressions of concern from within the organization further bolster the argument that there was an awareness of the dubious nature of the allegations being broadcast. This internal awareness is crucial for establishing actual malice in defamation cases.

The Broader Landscape of Election Misinformation

The Newsmax settlement is part of a larger narrative of challenges to the integrity of the 2020 election and the subsequent legal ramifications. President Trump’s persistent claims of a “rigged election” have been consistently refuted by numerous sources, including his own administration’s officials, court rulings, recounts, audits, and investigations.

Then-Attorney General William Barr stated that the Department of Justice found no evidence of widespread fraud that could have altered the election’s outcome. Dozens of lawsuits filed by Trump and his supporters challenging the election results were dismissed or lost, often by judges appointed by Trump himself. Recounts and audits, including those conducted by Republicans, consistently affirmed Joe Biden’s victory.

The source also touches upon subsequent actions by former President Trump that could be seen as attempts to delegitimize the election process and those involved in its oversight. These include pardoning individuals involved in the January 6th Capitol attack and directing investigations into cybersecurity officials who vouched for the election’s security. Furthermore, Trump’s executive order targeting the law firm Susman Godfrey, which litigated the Dominion cases, was halted by a federal judge who deemed it a “shocking abuse of power.”

These events highlight the persistent impact of the 2020 election claims on the political and legal landscape, and the ongoing efforts to counter misinformation. The settlements with media organizations like Newsmax and Fox News represent a legal mechanism for addressing the harm caused by the propagation of these false narratives.

Pros and Cons

Pros of the Settlement

• Financial Redress for Dominion: The $67 million settlement provides financial compensation to Dominion Voting Systems for the damages it incurred to its reputation and business due to the false allegations aired by Newsmax.
• Accountability for Misinformation: The settlement serves as a form of accountability for Newsmax, signaling that media organizations can face significant financial penalties for broadcasting defamatory content, especially when proven to be false and potentially made with malice.
• Reinforces Truth in Reporting: Such settlements can encourage media outlets to adhere to higher journalistic standards and verify information before broadcasting, contributing to a more informed public discourse.
• Deters Future Defamation: The financial and reputational consequences of this settlement, following the Fox News precedent, may deter other media organizations from engaging in similar practices of spreading unsubstantiated election fraud claims.
• Closure for Dominion: The settlement allows Dominion Voting Systems to move past the protracted legal battle and focus on its business operations without the ongoing distraction and reputational damage from the lawsuit.

Cons of the Settlement

• Lack of Public Trial and Detailed Findings: A settlement means the case did not go to a full trial, potentially limiting the public’s understanding of the full extent of the evidence and the specific findings of a jury regarding malice and damages.
• Perception of Avoidance: Some may view a settlement as a way for Newsmax to avoid a potentially more damaging public airing of internal documents and testimony, even if the financial outcome is substantial.
• Limited Impact on Underlying Narratives: While Newsmax is paying a settlement, the underlying narratives of election fraud may continue to resonate with certain segments of the population, and this settlement alone may not fully discredit those narratives for all.
• Financial Burden on Newsmax: The $67 million payout represents a significant financial strain on Newsmax, which could have broader implications for the company’s operations or future investments.
• Complexity of Proving Malice: The requirement to prove actual malice in defamation cases against media outlets can be a high bar, and settlements may sometimes reflect a strategic decision to avoid the costs and uncertainties of proving such a case in court, rather than a full admission of guilt.

Key Takeaways

• Newsmax has agreed to pay $67 million to settle a defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems over false claims about the 2020 election.
• The lawsuit accused Newsmax of defaming Dominion by airing unsubstantiated allegations of election fraud involving the company’s voting machines.
• Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis had previously ruled that Newsmax did indeed defame Dominion Voting Systems.
• Internal communications reportedly showed that some Newsmax employees were aware that the election fraud claims being aired were baseless.
• This settlement follows a similar case where Fox News Channel paid $787.5 million to settle a defamation lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems in 2023.
• Newsmax had previously settled a libel lawsuit with Smartmatic, another voting machine manufacturer, for $40 million.
• The settlement underscores the financial and legal consequences for media organizations that broadcast defamatory content, particularly concerning matters of public concern like election integrity.
• The case highlights the importance of journalistic accuracy and the potential for significant penalties when such standards are not met.

Future Outlook

The $67 million settlement reached by Newsmax with Dominion Voting Systems is likely to have a ripple effect on the media landscape, particularly for outlets that have engaged in the promotion of unsubstantiated claims regarding election integrity. Following the substantial settlement paid by Fox News, this agreement further solidifies a trend where media organizations face significant financial repercussions for defamatory reporting.

For Newsmax, this settlement represents a major financial and reputational challenge. It may lead to a reassessment of their editorial policies and fact-checking procedures, particularly concerning political coverage and claims made by guests. The financial strain of the settlement could also impact the network’s operational capacity or future strategic decisions.

Looking ahead, it is probable that other media outlets that have amplified similar election-related misinformation will face increased scrutiny and potentially similar legal challenges. The precedent set by the Dominion lawsuits against Fox News and Newsmax suggests a growing willingness by the courts to hold media accountable for the dissemination of false information that causes reputational and financial harm.

Furthermore, this development could influence how “opinion” journalism is approached, with a clearer line being drawn between commentary and the presentation of factual claims. The legal requirement to prove actual malice remains a key hurdle for plaintiffs, but the availability of internal communications and the court’s increasing scrutiny of broadcast content may make it more feasible to meet this standard.

The ongoing debate surrounding election integrity and the role of media in shaping public perception will continue. However, these settlements are likely to contribute to a more cautious approach by some media organizations, encouraging a greater emphasis on verification and adherence to journalistic ethics to avoid costly legal entanglements. The transparency provided by legal discovery processes in these cases has also shed light on the internal workings and decision-making processes within media companies, which could foster greater public awareness and demand for accountability.

Call to Action

As citizens navigating a complex media environment, it is crucial to remain critical consumers of information. The substantial settlements in defamation cases against media organizations like Newsmax and Fox News serve as a potent reminder of the need for rigorous fact-checking and the potential consequences of spreading misinformation.

We encourage readers to:

• Seek Diverse News Sources: Consult a variety of reputable news outlets to gain a comprehensive understanding of events, rather than relying on a single perspective.
• Verify Information: Before accepting claims, especially those that seem sensational or are politically charged, take the time to verify them through trusted fact-checking organizations and official sources.
• Support Responsible Journalism: Advocate for and support media organizations that demonstrate a commitment to accuracy, fairness, and ethical reporting.
• Understand Defamation Laws: Familiarize yourself with the principles of defamation law and the standards that media outlets are held to, particularly when reporting on public figures and matters of public interest.
• Engage Critically: Approach all forms of media content with a critical mindset, questioning the framing, sourcing, and potential biases present in the information you consume.

By staying informed and engaging critically with the news, we can contribute to a more fact-based and responsible media ecosystem.