Newsmax Settles Dominion Defamation Lawsuit for $67 Million Amidst Broader Election Integrity Debates

Conservative Network Pays Significant Sum in Wake of False 2020 Election Claims, Echoing Similar Cases

The conservative media network Newsmax has agreed to pay $67 million to settle a defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems, a company that accused the network of spreading false allegations about its role in the 2020 presidential election. This settlement, disclosed in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, marks another significant legal and financial consequence for media organizations that amplified unsubstantiated claims of widespread election fraud following the 2020 election. The agreement comes just over a year after Fox News Channel reached a $787.5 million settlement with Dominion in a similar defamation case, highlighting the persistent legal fallout from the contested presidential election.

The lawsuit centered on claims aired by Newsmax suggesting that Dominion’s voting machines were manipulated to unfairly benefit President Joe Biden over then-incumbent Donald Trump. Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis had previously ruled that Newsmax did indeed defame Dominion by broadcasting false information. While the judge determined that the falsehoods were present, the question of whether they were disseminated with actual malice—a legal standard required for public figures to prove defamation—was left to a jury to decide. However, Newsmax and Dominion reached an agreement before the trial could commence, bringing an end to this particular legal battle.

This development is occurring against a backdrop of ongoing political discourse surrounding election integrity and voting systems. Notably, former President Donald Trump has continued to voice concerns about mail-in ballots and voting machine technology, including systems supplied by companies like Dominion. The settlement with Newsmax adds another layer to the complex narrative surrounding the 2020 election, its aftermath, and the media’s role in shaping public perception.

Context and Background

The 2020 United States presidential election was a period of intense political polarization and public scrutiny. Following President Donald Trump’s loss to Democrat Joe Biden, numerous claims of widespread voter fraud and irregularities emerged, particularly within conservative media circles. These claims often targeted voting technology companies, including Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic, alleging that their machines were designed to alter vote counts.

Dominion Voting Systems and its equipment became central figures in many of the conspiracy theories circulated by pro-Trump allies. One particularly pervasive theory alleged a connection between Dominion’s machines, the deceased Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, and a scheme to rig the election in favor of Biden. These allegations were amplified across various media platforms, including cable news networks, social media, and online publications.

Newsmax, a conservative news channel known for its support of President Trump, was among the outlets that provided a platform for these claims. Internal documents and court proceedings in both the Dominion and Fox News cases have shed light on the internal discussions and decision-making processes within these organizations regarding their coverage of the election fraud allegations.

This legal pressure on media organizations stems from defamation lawsuits filed by voting machine companies that argued their reputations were severely damaged by the false claims. Defamation, in legal terms, generally requires a false statement of fact that is communicated to a third party and causes harm. For public figures or public concern matters, proving defamation typically requires demonstrating “actual malice,” meaning the statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was false.

The settlement with Newsmax is not an isolated event. In December 2023, Fox News Channel agreed to pay $787.5 million to settle a similar defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion. This settlement followed a ruling by the same judge, Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis, who found that Fox News had aired numerous lies about the 2020 election despite internal communications indicating that Fox officials were aware the claims were unsubstantiated. Judge Davis’s finding in the Fox case was that it was “CRYSTAL clear” that none of the allegations about Dominion were true.

Furthermore, Newsmax itself had previously settled a libel lawsuit for $40 million with Smartmatic, another voting machine manufacturer that was also a target of pro-Trump conspiracy theories aired on the network. These multiple legal actions underscore the significant financial and reputational risks faced by media outlets that broadcast unsubstantiated claims, particularly those concerning election integrity and potential fraud.

The legal battles have also brought to light internal communications within these media organizations. In the case of Newsmax, court documents revealed that some employees expressed concern about the veracity of the claims being aired. For instance, Newsmax host Bob Sellers is quoted in internal documents as questioning, “How long are we going to play along with election fraud?” just two days after the election was called for Biden. These communications suggest internal awareness within Newsmax that the narratives being promoted were questionable.

Moreover, internal documents indicated that Newsmax saw a business opportunity in catering to viewers who believed Trump had won the election, taking pride in not immediately calling the election for Biden. This suggests a potential motivation for continuing to air contested narratives, linking business interests with editorial decisions. Similar insights emerged from private communications surfaced in Dominion’s earlier case against Fox News, illustrating how business considerations can intersect with election coverage decisions.

The source material also references the broader context of legal challenges to the 2020 election results. Former President Trump and his allies pursued dozens of lawsuits alleging fraud, many of which were dismissed by judges, including some appointed by Trump. Numerous recounts, reviews, and audits, conducted by both parties and independent bodies, affirmed the election results and found no evidence of significant wrongdoing or errors that would have altered the outcome. Former Attorney General William Barr also stated that the Department of Justice found no evidence of widespread fraud.

The aftermath of the election also saw former President Trump taking actions related to individuals who supported the transfer of power and those who vouched for the election’s integrity. He pardoned individuals involved in the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol and directed his Department of Justice to investigate former Trump cybersecurity appointee Chris Krebs, who had affirmed the security and accuracy of the 2020 election. In another instance, an executive order from Trump targeted a law firm that litigated both the Dominion-Fox News case and the Dominion-Newsmax case, Susman Godfrey, citing their work on elections. A federal judge later halted this action, characterizing it as a “shocking abuse of power.” These events highlight the extended and often contentious legal and political landscape that followed the 2020 election.

In-Depth Analysis

The $67 million settlement between Newsmax and Dominion Voting Systems represents a significant financial judgment against a media organization for its reporting on the 2020 election. Analyzing this case requires understanding the legal framework of defamation, the role of evidence, and the impact of such claims on both companies and the broader public discourse.

The Legal Basis: Defamation and Actual Malice

At the core of Dominion’s case against Newsmax was the accusation of defamation. To prove defamation, Dominion had to demonstrate that Newsmax made false statements of fact about the company, that these statements were published to a third party, and that they caused harm to Dominion’s reputation. Given that Dominion is a company and its activities are a matter of public concern, and that the claims were directed at a public figure (former President Trump’s election claims), the legal standard for proving defamation in this context typically involves establishing “actual malice.”

Actual malice, as established in landmark Supreme Court cases like New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), requires proof that the defendant published the defamatory statement:

• With knowledge that it was false; or
• With reckless disregard for whether it was false or not.

The source material indicates that Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis had already ruled that Newsmax did, in fact, defame Dominion by airing false information. This ruling suggests that Dominion had presented sufficient evidence to meet the “false statement of fact” and “publication” elements. The critical question for the jury would have been whether Newsmax acted with actual malice.

The source notes that internal communications from Newsmax officials, revealed as part of the legal discovery process, indicated that they were aware the claims were baseless. For example, the quote from Newsmax host Bob Sellers, questioning the continued airing of “election fraud” narratives, points towards internal doubts about the veracity of the allegations. Such internal knowledge or strong doubts about the truth of the published statements could be used as evidence of reckless disregard for the truth, satisfying the actual malice standard.

Evidence of Internal Knowledge and Business Motivations

The legal battles involving Dominion have often hinged on the discovery of internal communications within media organizations. In the case of Newsmax, documents reportedly showed that employees repeatedly warned against false allegations promoted by pro-Trump guests, such as attorney Sidney Powell. The fact that Newsmax owner Chris Ruddy, identified as a Trump ally, found it “scary” that Trump was meeting with Powell further suggests internal awareness of the controversial nature and potential lack of credibility of some claims being made.

Furthermore, the source highlights that Newsmax’s business strategy may have played a role. The network reportedly took pride in not calling the election for Biden and saw a business opportunity in appealing to viewers who believed Trump had won. This suggests a potential economic incentive to continue airing narratives that resonated with a specific segment of the audience, even if those narratives were factually dubious. This motivation could be interpreted as a form of reckless disregard for the truth, if the pursuit of audience engagement or market share outweighed a commitment to accurate reporting.

Comparison with the Fox News Settlement

The $67 million settlement with Newsmax follows the much larger $787.5 million settlement reached by Fox News Channel with Dominion in December 2023. Both cases involved similar allegations that the networks amplified false claims of election fraud concerning Dominion’s voting machines. The fact that both networks, prominent voices in conservative media, faced significant legal repercussions for their election coverage indicates a pattern of behavior and the substantial risks associated with it.

The higher settlement amount for Fox News may reflect several factors, including the greater reach and influence of Fox News Channel compared to Newsmax, and potentially the strength of the evidence of actual malice in the Fox case. However, the Newsmax settlement is still substantial and demonstrates that even smaller networks can face severe financial penalties for similar conduct.

The Broader Impact on Election Discourse and Media Accountability

These legal outcomes have broader implications for media accountability and the public’s understanding of election integrity. The settlements send a clear message that broadcasting unsubstantiated claims, especially those that harm the reputation of companies and undermine democratic processes, can lead to significant legal and financial consequences.

The continued claims by former President Trump and some of his allies about election fraud, even after numerous court losses and audits, highlight the challenge of combating misinformation. The source material points out that Trump’s own Attorney General, William Barr, found no evidence of widespread fraud, and that various recounts and reviews affirmed Biden’s victory. The legal cases against media organizations have also served to publicly document that many individuals within these organizations were aware that the fraud claims were false.

The involvement of Judge Eric Davis in both the Fox and Dominion cases, and his consistent rulings regarding the falsity of the allegations, lends a judicial weight to the findings. His earlier ruling that it was “CRYSTAL clear” that the allegations were untrue in the Fox case, and his similar determination that Newsmax defamed Dominion, underscores the judicial consensus on the lack of factual basis for the widespread fraud claims.

The actions taken by former President Trump against entities involved in litigating these cases, such as the executive order targeting Susman Godfrey, raise further questions about the intersection of political power, legal processes, and freedom of the press. The judicial rebuke of such actions reinforces the importance of an independent judiciary in protecting against potential abuses of power.

In essence, the Newsmax settlement is not just a financial resolution but also a legal acknowledgment, through the settlement process, that false statements were made and that they caused harm. It contributes to a growing body of evidence and legal precedent demonstrating the consequences of disseminating misinformation, particularly in the highly charged arena of election reporting.

Pros and Cons

The settlement between Newsmax and Dominion Voting Systems, as well as the broader context of similar cases, can be analyzed through the lens of its potential advantages and disadvantages for various stakeholders and for the public discourse on election integrity.

Pros of the Settlement and Legal Actions:**

• Accountability for False Claims: The settlement holds Newsmax financially accountable for disseminating false information that harmed Dominion’s reputation. This can serve as a deterrent for other media outlets considering similar reporting.
• Reinforcement of Defamation Law: The outcome strengthens the application of defamation laws, particularly concerning the standard of actual malice for matters of public concern. It affirms that freedom of speech does not extend to knowingly or recklessly publishing false statements that cause damage.
• Validation for Dominion: For Dominion Voting Systems, the settlement offers a form of vindication and financial compensation for the reputational damage and business losses incurred due to the false allegations.
• Increased Scrutiny of Election Reporting: The legal challenges and settlements encourage greater diligence and fact-checking by media organizations when covering sensitive topics like election integrity, potentially leading to more responsible journalism.
• Judicial Confirmation of Factual Findings: While a settlement avoids a jury verdict, the underlying rulings by Judge Eric Davis, stating that Newsmax defamed Dominion by airing false information, provide a judicial perspective on the falsity of the claims.
• Transparency through Document Discovery: The legal process, even leading to a settlement, often involves the discovery of internal documents. These documents can offer valuable insights into how media organizations make editorial decisions and whether they are aware of the falsity of information they are broadcasting.

Cons of the Settlement and Legal Actions:**

• Avoidance of a Jury Verdict: A settlement means the case did not go to a full jury trial. This can mean that some of the more detailed evidence of actual malice might not have been fully presented to the public, and a definitive jury finding of guilt on all counts is absent.
• Financial Strain on News Outlets: Large settlement amounts can place significant financial strain on media organizations, potentially impacting their ability to operate or invest in their journalism.
• Perception of “Buying Silence”: Some may view large settlements as a way for media organizations to avoid a more public reckoning or a definitive judgment that could be more damaging.
• Potential for Politicization: The legal actions and settlements can become highly politicized, with different groups interpreting the outcomes based on their pre-existing political viewpoints, rather than solely on legal merit.
• Continued Erosion of Trust: For audiences who believe the unsubstantiated election fraud claims, these legal outcomes might be dismissed as politically motivated attacks on alternative viewpoints, potentially further eroding trust in the media and legal system.
• Focus on the “Big Lie”: While these cases address specific instances of defamation, they don’t necessarily resolve the broader issue of widespread belief in election fraud among certain segments of the population, which is a complex societal challenge.

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.
• The lawsuit accused Newsmax of falsely alleging that Dominion’s voting machines were rigged to unfairly benefit Joe Biden.
• Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis had previously ruled that Newsmax did defame Dominion by airing false information.
• The settlement resolves the case before it went to a jury, which would have decided whether the defamation was committed with actual malice and the amount of damages.
• This settlement follows a similar case where Fox News Channel paid $787.5 million to settle a defamation lawsuit with Dominion in December 2023.
• Newsmax had previously settled a libel lawsuit with Smartmatic, another voting machine company, for $40 million.
• Internal documents revealed during legal proceedings suggest that some Newsmax employees were aware that the election fraud claims being aired were baseless.
• The network’s business interests may have been a factor, with evidence suggesting Newsmax saw an opportunity in catering to viewers who believed Donald Trump won the election.
• These legal outcomes underscore the financial and reputational risks for media outlets that broadcast unsubstantiated claims, particularly regarding election integrity.
• Despite numerous court losses, recounts, and audits affirming the 2020 election results, claims of widespread fraud persist among some political figures and segments of the public.

Future Outlook

The settlement between Newsmax and Dominion Voting Systems, alongside previous legal actions against other media organizations, is likely to have a lasting impact on media coverage of elections and political discourse. Several trends and potential future developments can be anticipated:

Increased Caution in Election Reporting: Media outlets, particularly those with a strong partisan leaning, may exercise greater caution when reporting on allegations of election fraud or impropriety. The significant financial penalties faced by networks like Fox News and Newsmax serve as a stark warning. This could lead to more rigorous fact-checking, a greater reliance on verified sources, and a more hesitant approach to amplifying unproven claims from political figures or partisan guests.

Continued Legal Challenges: While Newsmax and Fox News have settled with Dominion, it is possible that other entities or individuals who claim to have been defamed by similar election-related claims may pursue legal action. The precedents set by these cases could embolden plaintiffs and shape the strategies of legal teams involved in such disputes.

Evolving Media Business Models: The financial implications of these settlements might force media organizations to re-evaluate their business models. Those heavily reliant on controversial or sensational content for audience engagement might face pressure to diversify their revenue streams or adopt more sustainable, fact-based reporting practices to mitigate legal risks.

The Ongoing Election Integrity Debate: The legal resolutions do not necessarily end the broader public debate surrounding election integrity. Former President Trump and his supporters continue to express concerns about voting systems and election processes. Future elections will likely see continued scrutiny of voting technology, mail-in ballots, and election administration, albeit potentially with more emphasis on presenting evidence and adhering to factual reporting standards in mainstream media.

Impact on Public Trust: The long-term impact on public trust in media remains a complex factor. For some audiences, the legal settlements may reinforce a perception that certain media outlets are untrustworthy. For others, they may serve to validate the importance of journalistic accountability and factual reporting. The challenge for all media organizations will be to rebuild and maintain trust with a diverse audience in an environment still marked by deep political divisions.

Political Responses to Election Systems: The source mentions former President Trump’s continued vows to eliminate mail-in ballots and question voting machines. This suggests that political advocacy regarding election systems will persist. The outcomes of these legal cases could influence the language and strategies employed by political actors when discussing election processes, potentially leading to more nuanced or, conversely, more entrenched positions depending on the political climate.

Ultimately, the Newsmax settlement, like the Fox News settlement before it, represents a significant moment in the ongoing conversation about media responsibility, the dissemination of information, and the legal ramifications of false claims in the digital age. It signals a shift towards greater accountability for media organizations engaging in election coverage that lacks factual grounding.

Call to Action

As citizens navigating a complex information landscape, it is crucial to remain informed and critically evaluate the sources of news and commentary, especially regarding matters as vital as election integrity. The recent settlement involving Newsmax underscores the importance of media accountability and the potential consequences of spreading unsubstantiated claims.

We encourage you to:

• Verify Information: Always cross-reference information from multiple reputable news sources before forming conclusions. Look for reporting that cites official documents, verifiable data, and a diversity of expert opinions.
• Understand Legal Standards: Familiarize yourself with the legal principles governing defamation and the importance of factual accuracy in journalism. Understanding terms like “actual malice” can help in critically assessing news reports.
• Support Fact-Based Journalism: Consider supporting news organizations that demonstrate a commitment to rigorous fact-checking, transparent sourcing, and ethical reporting standards.
• Engage Critically with Content: Be mindful of the emotional language, framing, and selective omissions that can characterize biased reporting. Question claims that seem extraordinary or lack corroborating evidence.
• Stay Informed on Election Processes: Seek out information about election administration and technology from official government sources, non-partisan election integrity watchdogs, and academic researchers.

By actively engaging with information in this manner, we can collectively contribute to a more informed public discourse and uphold the principles of truth and accountability in media.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) – A landmark Supreme Court case that established the “actual malice” standard for defamation of public officials.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Filing – Original disclosure of the settlement agreement by Newsmax.

Delaware Superior Court Ruling (example reference for Davis’s role) – While the specific ruling for Newsmax isn’t publicly linked here, Judge Davis presided over similar cases, including the Fox News Dominion case, where similar rulings on defamation were made.

Reuters Report on Fox News Settlement – Detailed information regarding the Fox News settlement with Dominion Voting Systems.

U.S. Department of Justice (related to election challenges) – Information on actions taken by the DOJ during the Trump administration concerning individuals involved in election challenges or security.

Federal Election Commission (FEC) – Official source for federal election information and regulations.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) – Provides information on state election laws, recounts, and audits.