Article image

The Price of Recklessness

Monday, 10 November 2025 15:28

Summary

The defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News Network concluded in April 2023 with a historic $787.5 million settlement, abruptly halting a trial that promised to expose the inner workings of a major media organisation. The case centred on false claims aired by the network following the 2020 US Presidential Election, which alleged that Dominion’s machines were used to rig the vote. Pre-trial discovery revealed a trove of internal communications, including emails and text messages, showing that many Fox executives and star hosts privately disbelieved the conspiracy theories they were broadcasting. This evidence was crucial in establishing the 'actual malice' standard required for a public figure to win a defamation case in the United States. The settlement, the largest publicly disclosed of its kind in American media history, averted the public testimony of figures like Rupert Murdoch and Sean Hannity, but it simultaneously delivered a profound financial and reputational blow, setting a significant precedent for media accountability in the age of political polarisation and misinformation.

The Last-Minute Aversion of a Public Trial

On 18 April 2023, just as the jury had been sworn in and opening statements were imminent, the Delaware Superior Court announced that a settlement had been reached in the landmark defamation case of Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News Network1,2,3,7. The agreement required Fox News to pay Dominion $787.5 million, a figure that represented the largest publicly disclosed monetary settlement in American media history for a defamation action3,7,8. The resolution brought an abrupt end to a legal battle that had been closely watched as a potential watershed moment for media law and accountability in the United States3,8. Dominion had originally sought $1.6 billion in damages, arguing that the network had severely damaged its reputation by repeatedly airing baseless conspiracy theories about its voting technology1,2,3,5. The settlement spared Fox Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch, chief executive Lachlan Murdoch, and prominent hosts such as Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity from having to testify publicly under oath about their actions and motivations2,3,5. While the payment was substantial, amounting to nearly one-fifth of Fox Corporation’s cash on hand at the time, the settlement did not require the network to issue an on-air apology1,3,4. Fox News Media released a statement acknowledging the court’s pre-trial rulings that found certain claims about Dominion to be false4,10. The resolution was framed by Dominion’s legal team as a vindication of truth, with a lawyer for the company stating that the settlement showed that 'lies have consequences'2,3,7,8.

The Genesis of the False Narrative

The lawsuit stemmed from the aftermath of the 2020 US Presidential Election, during which Fox News and its guests repeatedly broadcast false claims that Dominion’s voting machines were part of a vast, fictitious plot to steal the election from then-President Donald Trump1,3,6,8. These claims, which were aired between November 2020 and January 2021, included accusations that Dominion had manipulated vote counts through secret algorithms, was founded in Venezuela to rig elections for Hugo Chavez, and had paid kickbacks to government officials5,6. The network’s decision to amplify these narratives was rooted in a fear of losing its core audience6. On election night, Fox News’s decision desk correctly called the state of Arizona for Democrat Joe Biden, a move that infuriated President Trump and caused a significant portion of the network’s conservative viewership to flee to rival right-wing outlets6. Internal communications revealed during the discovery phase showed that Fox executives and hosts were 'terrified' of this audience backlash and sought to win back viewers by giving airtime to the election fraud claims6. This commercial motivation became a central pillar of Dominion’s case, suggesting that the network prioritised ratings and financial concerns over journalistic integrity1,6.

The Actual Malice Standard and Damning Evidence

To succeed in a defamation case in the United States, a public figure like Dominion must meet the high legal standard of 'actual malice,' established by the 1964 Supreme Court case *New York Times Co. v. Sullivan*1,5,6,10. This standard requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant published the false material either knowing it was false or with a 'reckless disregard' for whether or not it was true1,5,6,12. The pre-trial discovery process yielded a mountain of evidence that Dominion argued proved this standard had been met6,12. Internal emails, text messages, and deposition transcripts showed that prominent figures within the network privately dismissed the claims as 'ludicrous,' 'crazy,' and 'MIND BLOWINGLY NUTS'6,11. For instance, Sean Hannity stated in his deposition that he 'did not believe it for one second' when a guest promoted the rigging allegations on his programme1. Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of Fox Corporation, testified that he believed the 2020 election was fair and had not been stolen6. Despite this private knowledge, the network continued to provide a platform for guests like Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell to spread the false allegations1,6. Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis delivered a significant blow to Fox’s defence in a summary judgment on 31 March 2023, ruling that none of the statements made about Dominion were true1,6. This ruling meant that the trial would focus exclusively on the question of actual malice, a question that the internal communications made highly perilous for the network1,5,12. The judge also rejected Fox’s argument that it was merely reporting on newsworthy allegations, noting that the network failed to report extensive contradicting evidence from public sources and Dominion itself5.

The Legal and Financial Fallout

The $787.5 million settlement is widely considered the largest defamation settlement involving a media organisation in US history1,3,7,8. The payment represented a substantial financial hit to Fox Corporation, which had approximately $4.1 billion in cash on hand at the time of the settlement1,3. For Dominion, a company that had projected $98 million in revenue for 2022, the settlement represented a massive financial windfall4. The decision to settle, rather than proceed to trial, allowed Fox to avoid a public spectacle that would have involved its most senior executives and star hosts being cross-examined on the stand3,5. This avoidance of a legal finding of 'actual malice' was a key incentive for the network, as such a finding would have been a devastating legal precedent for a news organisation5. However, the settlement did not end Fox’s legal troubles stemming from its 2020 election coverage3,7. The network still faces a separate, larger defamation lawsuit from Smartmatic, another voting technology company, which is seeking $2.7 billion in damages1,3,5,7,8. Dominion’s successful litigation also spurred other related lawsuits, including those against individuals like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, who have also since reached settlements with Dominion1,5,8. The case demonstrated that while the actual malice standard is difficult to meet, it is not impossible, providing a significant, albeit costly, example of accountability for the dissemination of intentional falsehoods in the media landscape11,12.

Conclusion

The resolution of the Dominion lawsuit, while a settlement and not a jury verdict, delivered a powerful message about the financial consequences of knowingly broadcasting false information2,7,12. The sheer size of the payment, which is unprecedented in American media defamation law, underscored the severity of the network’s conduct and the damage inflicted upon Dominion’s reputation3,8. The public release of internal communications during the discovery phase provided a rare and damaging look behind the curtain of a major news operation, revealing a cynical calculation to prioritise commercial interests over the truth6,11. Legal scholars have noted that the case, even without a trial, discredited Fox’s election coverage and demonstrated that the constitutional protection afforded to the press is not absolute when a plaintiff can prove a reckless disregard for the truth12. The lingering $2.7 billion lawsuit from Smartmatic ensures that the legal and financial fallout from the 2020 election coverage remains an active threat to the network3,7. Ultimately, the $787.5 million payment stands as a monumental cost for the pursuit of ratings, serving as a stark reminder that, in the American legal system, lies can indeed have a staggering price2,8.

References

  1. Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network - Wikipedia

    Supports the settlement amount, the original claim, the core allegations, the key figures involved (hosts and executives), the actual malice standard, the pre-trial ruling on falsity, and the existence of the Smartmatic lawsuit.

  2. Fox, Dominion reach $787M settlement over election claims - AP News

    Confirms the $787.5 million settlement amount, the timing of the settlement, the core reason for the lawsuit (chasing viewers by promoting lies), and the quote from Dominion's lawyer, Justin Nelson.

  3. Fox News, Dominion settle defamation lawsuit for $787.5 million - The Washington Post

    Verifies the settlement amount, its status as the largest publicly disclosed defamation settlement in American history, the original $1.6 billion claim, the lack of an apology requirement, and the pending Smartmatic lawsuit.

  4. Fox News Will Pay Dominion Voting Systems $787 Million to Settle. What Does That Mean for Fox? - Esquire

    Provides the exact settlement figure, confirms the network's statement acknowledging the court's rulings, and includes the projected revenue figure for Dominion in 2022.

  5. Understanding the Dominion v. Fox News Defamation Lawsuit - Nolo

    Explains the actual malice standard, the specific false claims aired (e.g., Hugo Chavez, algorithms), the pre-trial ruling on the statements being factual assertions, the judge's rejection of the 'neutral report' privilege, and the incentive for Fox to settle to avoid a legal finding of actual malice.

  6. Fox, Dominion Voting Systems reach $787 million settlement over false election claims - PBS NewsHour

    Details the context of the Arizona call and the network's fear of losing viewers, the internal communications mocking the claims ('MIND BLOWINGLY NUTS'), Rupert Murdoch's testimony, and Judge Davis's 'CRYSTAL clear' ruling on the falsity of the claims.

  7. Dominion wins $787m from Fox News as election lies lawsuit settled - The Independent

    Confirms the settlement amount, its status as the largest-ever libel settlement in American history, the timing of the announcement, and the pending Smartmatic lawsuit.

  8. Fox News to Pay $787.5 Million to Settle Defamation Claims Brought by Susman Godfrey Client, Dominion Voting Systems - Susman Godfrey L.L.P.

    Verifies the settlement amount, the original $1.6 billion claim, the historic nature of the settlement, and the ongoing litigation against other individuals like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell.

  9. In a blow to Fox News, judge rules network withheld evidence in Dominion case - Los Angeles Times

    Provides context on the discovery misconduct ruling by Judge Davis and the revelation of recorded conversations, which contributed to the pressure on Fox to settle.

  10. Understanding the last-minute settlement in Dominion's defamation suit against Fox News - GBH News (YouTube)

    Confirms the settlement amount, the lack of a public apology, the court's pre-trial ruling on falsity, and the legal context of the New York Times v. Sullivan actual malice standard.

  11. The Fox/Dominion Settlement Highlights the Importance of Discovery in Proving 'Actual Malice' - Reason Magazine

    Reinforces the role of discovery in revealing the internal communications (e.g., 'really crazy,' 'comic book stuff') and the conclusion that the outcome shows libel law is not dead in America.

  12. Legal Scholars Weigh In on the Lasting Significance of Dominion v. Fox - First Amendment Watch

    Discusses the significance of the settlement, the strong chance Dominion had of proving actual malice, the discrediting of Fox's coverage, and the fact that the trial was set to focus on the actual malice standard.