Newsmax Agrees to $67 Million Settlement in Dominion Defamation Lawsuit

A Landmark Case Exposes the Perils of Election Disinformation and Media Accountability

In a significant development that underscores the ongoing battle against election disinformation and the quest for media accountability, Newsmax has agreed to pay $67 million to settle a defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems. The lawsuit stemmed from claims made by the conservative news outlet alleging that Dominion’s voting machines were involved in a fraudulent scheme to alter the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election. This settlement, announced on July 25, 2024, marks a pivotal moment in the legal and public discourse surrounding the spread of false narratives and their impact on democratic processes.

Dominion Voting Systems, a prominent manufacturer of electronic voting equipment, had sued Newsmax, alleging that the network repeatedly broadcast false claims that the company had manipulated votes in the 2020 election. The lawsuit, filed in Delaware, accused Newsmax of engaging in a pattern of “disinformation and defamation” that harmed Dominion’s reputation and business. The $67 million agreement, reached just as jury selection was set to begin in a trial that promised to reveal internal communications and editorial decisions at Newsmax, represents one of the largest payouts in a defamation case involving a media organization in recent memory. This settlement follows a similar, larger settlement by Fox News with Dominion in April 2023 for $787.5 million over similar allegations.

Context & Background

The origins of this legal battle lie in the aftermath of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, a period marked by widespread claims of voter fraud and irregularities, particularly from supporters of then-President Donald Trump. Newsmax, a cable news channel known for its conservative and often pro-Trump stance, provided a platform for many of these allegations. Following the election, Newsmax hosted numerous guests and broadcast segments that promoted unsubstantiated theories about Dominion’s role in a rigged election. These narratives suggested that Dominion’s machines were deliberately programmed to switch votes from Trump to Joe Biden.

Dominion Voting Systems, which provides voting equipment and services to jurisdictions across the United States, vehemently denied these accusations. The company argued that these false claims, amplified by media outlets like Newsmax, were baseless and severely damaged its reputation, leading to significant financial losses and threats against its employees. In response, Dominion initiated legal action against several media organizations and individuals who promoted these allegations, seeking to hold them accountable for the dissemination of what it described as defamatory falsehoods.

The lawsuit against Newsmax was particularly significant because it targeted a media outlet that, while not as large as Fox News, had gained considerable influence among conservative viewers. The claims broadcast by Newsmax included allegations of voting machine malfunctions, software glitches designed to change vote totals, and outright voter fraud orchestrated by Dominion. These narratives were often presented without rigorous fact-checking or counterbalancing perspectives, contributing to a climate of distrust in the electoral system.

Dominion’s legal strategy, mirrored in its cases against other media companies, focused on demonstrating that Newsmax knew or should have known that the claims it was broadcasting were false. The company sought discovery into Newsmax’s internal communications, editorial processes, and the knowledge of its key personnel, including its executives and on-air personalities. The prospect of these internal documents becoming public in a trial was a significant factor, as it could expose how and why the network chose to air these controversial claims.

The settlement with Newsmax is part of a broader legal campaign by Dominion and another voting technology company, Smartmatic, against various media outlets and individuals accused of promoting false election fraud narratives. These cases have drawn significant attention, as they test the boundaries of free speech protections and the responsibility of media organizations to report accurately, especially concerning matters of public importance like elections.

In-Depth Analysis

The Newsmax settlement with Dominion Voting Systems is a complex legal and media event with far-reaching implications. Analyzing the case requires an understanding of defamation law, the role of media in shaping public opinion, and the specific context of the 2020 election aftermath.

Defamation Law and the “Actual Malice” Standard: In the United States, public figures and public officials suing for defamation must prove “actual malice.” This legal standard, established in the landmark Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1968), requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant published a false statement knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was false or not. For Dominion, a private company, the standard is typically lower, requiring proof of negligence rather than actual malice. However, because the defamatory statements involved matters of public concern related to the election, the actual malice standard, or a closely related version, was likely a consideration in the legal strategy. The success of Dominion’s cases against Fox News and the eventual settlement with Newsmax suggest that plaintiffs can, in certain circumstances, meet this high bar by demonstrating that media organizations pursued narratives they knew or should have known were false.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

Media Responsibility and Disinformation: The case highlights the immense power of media organizations to shape public discourse and the profound responsibility that comes with it. Newsmax, by providing a platform for unsubstantiated election fraud claims, played a role in amplifying narratives that undermined public trust in democratic institutions. The settlement suggests that media outlets cannot operate with impunity when broadcasting potentially damaging false information, particularly when it relates to critical public processes like elections. The legal pressure exerted by Dominion and other plaintiffs aims to incentivize more rigorous fact-checking and a more cautious approach to reporting on controversial and sensitive topics.

The Impact of Internal Communications: A key element in these defamation cases is the potential for discovery of internal communications among executives, producers, and on-air personalities. Dominion’s legal team, much like in the Fox News case, would have sought to unearth evidence of what Newsmax leadership knew or suspected about the truthfulness of the claims being aired. The threat of embarrassing internal emails, memos, or discussions becoming public can be a powerful motivator for settlement. Such documents could reveal a deliberate decision to prioritize ratings or political alignment over journalistic integrity, or a reckless disregard for the truth.

Financial Stakes and Industry Precedent: The $67 million settlement is a substantial financial blow to Newsmax, but it also sets a precedent. Following the $787.5 million settlement by Fox News with Dominion, this second major settlement signals that media organizations that promote election disinformation face significant financial and reputational risks. These legal victories for Dominion have emboldened other entities and individuals who have been similarly targeted by false narratives, potentially leading to more legal challenges in the future.

The Role of the Audience: The audience of Newsmax, largely conservative and often supportive of President Trump, is a critical factor in understanding the context of the lawsuit. The claims about election fraud resonated with a segment of the population that felt disenfranchised or believed the election was illegitimate. Media outlets that cater to specific audiences can face pressure to align their reporting with the perceived views of their viewers. This settlement, therefore, also raises questions about the dynamics between media producers, their audiences, and the responsibility to provide accurate information, even when it may be unpopular with a significant portion of their base.

Pros and Cons

The settlement between Newsmax and Dominion Voting Systems presents a mixed bag of outcomes and implications.

Pros:

• Justice for Dominion: The settlement provides financial compensation to Dominion Voting Systems for the reputational and business damages it incurred due to the false allegations. This can be seen as a form of justice for a company that was unfairly targeted by a disinformation campaign.
• Media Accountability: The substantial payout serves as a strong deterrent against the spread of election disinformation by other media outlets. It reinforces the idea that media organizations can be held legally responsible for knowingly or recklessly broadcasting false and defamatory statements.
• Reinforcing Truth: The settlement, alongside legal actions against other outlets, helps to reinforce the factual narrative that the 2020 election was not rigged and that Dominion Voting Systems did not engage in fraudulent activities.
• Public Awareness: The high-profile nature of the lawsuit and settlement increases public awareness about the dangers of election disinformation and the importance of media literacy. It encourages audiences to critically evaluate the information they consume.
• Deterrent Effect: The financial repercussions for Newsmax and the precedent set by the Fox News settlement may discourage other media outlets from engaging in similar practices in the future, promoting a more responsible media environment.

Cons:

• Lack of Public Trial: The settlement means that crucial evidence and internal discussions that might have been revealed in a public trial will not be aired. This could limit the public’s understanding of how the disinformation campaign was managed within Newsmax.
• Financial Strain on Newsmax: While Newsmax is a business, a $67 million payout could have significant financial implications, potentially impacting its operations, staffing, or future programming.
• Perpetuating Distrust for Some: For a segment of Newsmax’s audience that continues to believe the election fraud claims, the settlement may be interpreted as an attempt to silence dissenting voices or a continuation of a conspiracy rather than an acknowledgment of wrongdoing. This could further entrench distrust among this demographic.
• “Merely” Financial Penalty: Critics might argue that a financial settlement, while substantial, does not fully address the reputational harm or the ethical breaches. Some may have preferred stronger forms of accountability, such as a public apology or significant changes in editorial policy that are not guaranteed by the settlement terms.
• Focus on Legal Battles: While these lawsuits are important for accountability, they also highlight the divisive nature of political discourse and the ongoing challenges in establishing common ground based on shared factual understanding.

Key Takeaways

• Newsmax has agreed to pay $67 million to settle a defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion Voting Systems over false claims of election fraud in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.
• The lawsuit alleged that Newsmax broadcast defamatory statements that damaged Dominion’s reputation and business operations.
• This settlement follows a similar $787.5 million settlement by Fox News with Dominion in April 2023 for similar allegations.
• The cases hinge on the legal standard of defamation, particularly the “actual malice” standard applicable to statements about public figures and matters of public concern, requiring proof that the publisher knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth.
• The settlement underscores the increasing legal and financial risks for media organizations that disseminate unsubstantiated election disinformation, highlighting the importance of journalistic integrity and fact-checking.
• The legal actions brought by Dominion aim to hold media outlets accountable for amplifying false narratives that contributed to the erosion of public trust in democratic institutions and electoral processes.
• The avoidance of a public trial means that many internal communications and editorial decisions at Newsmax related to the broadcast of these claims will not be publicly disclosed, limiting direct public insight into the network’s operations.

Future Outlook

The settlement between Newsmax and Dominion Voting Systems, coming on the heels of the Fox News settlement, signals a significant shift in the landscape of media accountability regarding election disinformation. Several key trends are likely to emerge from this development:

Increased Scrutiny of Election Reporting: Media organizations, especially those catering to politically charged audiences, will likely face heightened scrutiny regarding their reporting on election integrity and any claims of fraud. The legal precedents set by these cases may compel them to implement more robust fact-checking procedures and editorial review processes before broadcasting potentially controversial or damaging allegations.

Further Legal Challenges: It is plausible that other entities and individuals who have been the target of similar disinformation campaigns will be emboldened to pursue legal action against media outlets. This could lead to a wave of further defamation lawsuits, particularly those seeking to hold media accountable for spreading false narratives about elections or other sensitive public matters.

Impact on Media Business Models: The substantial financial penalties associated with these lawsuits could impact the business models of media organizations. Those relying heavily on sensationalism or partisan narratives may need to re-evaluate their strategies to mitigate legal risks. This could lead to a greater emphasis on factual reporting and a more cautious approach to controversial topics.

Evolving Defamation Law: These cases are contributing to an evolving understanding and application of defamation law in the digital age. The legal battles are testing the limits of free speech protections when balanced against the need to protect reputations and the integrity of democratic processes from the spread of misinformation.

Public Demand for Truth: As disinformation continues to be a significant societal challenge, there may be an increasing public demand for media outlets to prioritize truth and accuracy. Settlements like this can reinforce the value of credible journalism and encourage audiences to support media that adheres to high ethical standards.

Potential for Regulatory or Industry Self-Regulation: While direct government regulation of news content in the U.S. is limited by First Amendment protections, the legal and financial consequences faced by media outlets could spur greater self-regulation or industry-led initiatives to combat disinformation and uphold journalistic ethics.

Call to Action

In an era where information, both accurate and misleading, travels at unprecedented speeds, the outcomes of cases like the Dominion versus Newsmax lawsuit serve as critical reminders for both media consumers and producers. For individuals, it is a call to action to cultivate strong media literacy skills. This means actively questioning sources, cross-referencing information, and being discerning about the emotional appeals and framing employed by various media outlets.

Resources for Media Literacy:

• News Literacy Project: Offers resources and programs to help people become more informed and engaged citizens by developing critical thinking and media literacy skills.
• Poynter Institute – Fact-Checking: Provides resources and training on fact-checking techniques and understanding misinformation.
• Common Sense Media: Offers guidance on digital citizenship and media consumption for families and educators.

For media organizations, this moment underscores the profound responsibility that comes with shaping public opinion. Upholding journalistic integrity, committing to rigorous fact-checking, and providing balanced reporting are not just ethical imperatives but also legal and financial necessities in the current media climate. The pursuit of truth and accuracy is paramount in maintaining public trust and ensuring the healthy functioning of democratic discourse. It is crucial for all stakeholders in the information ecosystem to champion transparency and accountability, thereby fostering a more informed and resilient society.