Case Study 37-1: Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network

Defamation Law Meets Election Misinformation

Overview

The defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News Network in March 2021 became the most significant test of defamation law as a check on election misinformation in American history. The case produced an unprecedented archive of internal corporate communications — revealing a documented gap between what Fox News personnel privately believed about post-2020 election fraud claims and what they continued to broadcast. It settled in April 2023 for $787.5 million, the largest known defamation settlement in American media history, days before trial was to begin.

The case raises fundamental questions about the relationship between commercial incentives and journalistic responsibility, the role of defamation law in a polarized media environment, and what happens when legal accountability for false claims confronts the First Amendment protections that make American press freedom among the most robust in the world.

Background: The Claims at Issue

Following the 2020 presidential election, Fox News provided extensive platform to allies of President Donald Trump who alleged that Dominion Voting Systems had corrupted the election results. Among the specific allegations broadcast on Fox News:

That Dominion's voting machines had been designed with the capacity to flip votes between candidates
That Dominion had been founded in Venezuela with funding from the late Hugo Chavez
That Dominion's software had been used to manipulate elections in other countries
That Dominion employees had engaged in a scheme to switch votes from Trump to Biden
That the company had foreign government connections that made its equipment a national security threat
That Dominion had paid election officials to use its machines in key swing states

Dominion alleged that each of these claims was demonstrably false and that Fox News had broadcast them knowing they were false or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.

The Complaint and Legal Theory

Dominion filed suit in the Delaware Superior Court in March 2021, asserting defamation claims under Delaware law against Fox News Network and separately against Fox Corporation (the parent company). Dominion was classified as a "private figure" for defamation purposes because, while it provided services in the public election administration context, it was a private company that had not voluntarily injected itself into public controversy in the relevant First Amendment sense.

The private figure status was significant: as a private plaintiff, Dominion would not need to prove "actual malice" (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for truth) under the New York Times v. Sullivan constitutional standard. Instead, Delaware law required Dominion to prove only that Fox News had been negligent.

However, Dominion's litigation team argued, and ultimately proved for purposes of the summary judgment record, that the evidence supported actual malice in any event — because the internal communications showed that Fox News personnel did not merely fail to investigate adequately but actively continued to broadcast claims they privately rejected.

The Pretrial Record: Internal Communications

The most consequential phase of the case was pretrial discovery, during which Dominion obtained access to Fox News's internal communications — text messages, emails, and deposition testimony from anchors, executives, and the Murdoch family. The resulting record was unsealed in substantial part through a series of court rulings in early 2023.

What the Communications Showed

Rupert Murdoch: Fox Corporation's executive chairman described the election fraud narrative in internal communications as "really crazy stuff." In a November 2020 message, Murdoch's personal communications indicated awareness that the fraud claims were not credible.

Tucker Carlson: In a November 2020 text exchange with Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity, Carlson wrote about Sidney Powell — one of the primary election fraud claimants whom Fox was platforming — that she was "lying by the way. I caught her. It's insane." Three days before this exchange, Carlson had hosted Powell on his program and provided her a platform to make fraud claims.

Sean Hannity: Hannity texted that he had privately spoken to Trump about the claims and expressed skepticism. In an internal message, Hannity described the election fraud narrative as a problem and expressed concern that Fox's coverage was damaging the network's credibility.

Laura Ingraham: Ingraham texted that Sidney Powell was "a bit nuts" and separately described the broader election fraud claims as not credible.

Fox News executives: Internal communications among senior executives showed awareness that Fox faced a commercial threat from competitors (OAN and Newsmax) who were more credulous about election fraud claims, concern that challenging the claims would alienate the Trump-supporting viewer base, and discussions about coverage decisions framed around viewer retention rather than journalistic judgment about the claims' credibility.

The Commercial Pressure Context

Particularly significant was evidence that Fox News experienced a sharp viewer drop — and a social media backlash from conservative users — when it became one of the first news organizations to call Arizona for Biden on election night 2020. Subsequent internal communications showed Fox personnel discussing the need to win back viewers they had lost to more credulous competitors.

This commercial context was relevant to the actual malice analysis because it provided a motive for continuing to broadcast claims that personnel privately doubted: maintaining ratings by telling audiences what they wanted to hear. A motive does not prove actual malice, but it is relevant to the question of what drove editorial decisions.

Judge Davis's Pretrial Ruling

In February 2023, Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis denied Fox News's motion for summary judgment and allowed the case to proceed to trial. The ruling contained language unusually direct for a judicial opinion:

Judge Davis found that "CRYSTAL clear that none of the statements about Dominion made by Fox's [named] anchors or guests were true." The opinion further found that the evidence was "sufficient for a reasonable juror to conclude that Fox acted with actual malice" — specifically with knowledge of the statements' falsity or reckless disregard for their truth.

The ruling did not find as a matter of law that Fox had acted with actual malice; that would have been for the jury to determine. But the ruling meant that Dominion would be allowed to present this evidence to a jury and that a reasonable jury could find actual malice — a significantly higher bar than merely finding the evidence sufficient to raise a question.

The Settlement

On April 18, 2023 — the day jury selection was scheduled to begin — Dominion and Fox News announced a settlement of $787.5 million. The settlement included:

A payment of $787.5 million to Dominion
No admission of wrongdoing by Fox News
No apology from Fox News
No requirement that Fox News broadcast a correction or acknowledgment

The settlement amount was less than the $1.6 billion Dominion had sought but represented the largest known defamation settlement in American history. Fox News issued a brief statement acknowledging "the court's rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false."

Legal Analysis

Implications of the Pre-Trial Record

The settlement prevented a jury verdict, which limits the case's doctrinal impact. No appeals court will examine the evidence and pronounce on whether actual malice was established. However, the pretrial record has lasting significance:

Evidentiary template: The case demonstrated that internal communications of media organizations — texts, emails, Slack messages — are discoverable in defamation cases and can produce compelling evidence of the gap between private knowledge and public statements. Future plaintiffs in similar cases will use the Dominion discovery as a template.

Actual malice from commercial motive: The case suggested that when commercial pressures — viewer retention, competitive threat from competitors with weaker journalistic standards — demonstrably influence a decision to continue broadcasting claims that personnel privately reject, this may support an actual malice finding. This is a significant potential development in the law, though it remains for future courts to address.

Scale of broadcasting: The case involved not isolated statements but a sustained campaign of broadcasting repeated false claims across multiple program hours and multiple anchors over weeks. The scale matters to damages calculations and to the assessment of recklessness — the more times personnel broadcast a claim they privately doubted, the stronger the argument that they were acting with reckless disregard for its truth.

What Defamation Law Can and Cannot Do

The Dominion case illustrates both the potential and the limits of defamation law as a check on election misinformation:

What it can do: - Impose substantial financial liability on media organizations that broadcast false, reputationally damaging claims about identifiable private companies or individuals - Through discovery, produce a public record documenting the gap between private knowledge and public statements - Create deterrent effects on future broadcast decisions about similar claims

What it cannot do: - Reach political speech about electoral processes that does not make false factual claims about specific identifiable parties - Operate effectively where the plaintiff is a "public figure" who faces the much higher actual malice standard - Address the propagation of election fraud claims through social media, where individual speakers lack the resources to be worth suing - Produce the public acknowledgment, correction, or accountability that a trial verdict might have

The Broader Context: Other Defamation Actions

Dominion's action was one of several defamation suits arising from post-2020 election coverage:

Dominion v. Giuliani: A separate Dominion suit against Rudy Giuliani resulted in a $148 million jury verdict in August 2023.
Dominion v. MyPillow/Lindell: Dominion sought $1.6 billion from Mike Lindell; the case proceeded through litigation into 2024.
Smartmatic v. Fox News: A separate voting technology company, Smartmatic, filed a $2.7 billion defamation suit against Fox News, OAN, and others; this case continued after the Dominion settlement.
Dominion v. Powell: A separate action against Sidney Powell, who had made many of the most specific fraud allegations; the case continued after the Fox settlement.

Discussion Questions

The Dominion settlement included no admission of wrongdoing and no public correction. Is a large monetary settlement without public accountability an adequate remedy for election misinformation broadcast to millions of viewers? What would more adequate remedies look like, and are they achievable within American defamation law?
The actual malice standard was designed in Sullivan to protect robust public debate by making it difficult for public figures to recover for defamation. Dominion was a private figure, so the full Sullivan protections did not apply. Should the Sullivan standard apply when private companies are involved in matters of significant public concern (like election administration)? What are the arguments on each side?
The evidence suggested that Fox News's coverage decisions were significantly influenced by commercial pressures — fear of losing viewers to more credulous competitors. Does this kind of commercial pressure constitute "reckless disregard for truth" for actual malice purposes? Should it? What alternative legal standard, if any, should govern?
Defamation law requires an identifiable plaintiff who has suffered reputational harm. Election fraud claims that do not target a specific company (e.g., claims that "the election was stolen" without naming a specific system or official) cannot be addressed through defamation litigation. What regulatory or legal tools, if any, should address these more diffuse false claims?
The Dominion case settled the day jury selection began. For plaintiff's counsel, settlement avoids the risk of losing. For defendant's counsel, it avoids the risk of a public verdict with even more damaging evidence exposed at trial. From a public interest perspective — the interest in accountability for election misinformation — was settlement preferable to trial? Why or why not?

Key Takeaways

Defamation law, while limited by the actual malice standard for public figures, can impose significant liability on media organizations that broadcast false claims about private plaintiffs.
Discovery in defamation cases can produce valuable evidentiary records documenting the gap between private knowledge and public statements — a record with public accountability value independent of the legal outcome.
Commercial pressures — competition for ratings, audience retention — can influence coverage decisions in ways that may support actual malice findings when personnel broadcast claims they privately doubt.
Settlement before trial limits defamation law's doctrinal development but can produce record settlements with deterrent effects.
Defamation law cannot address the full scope of election misinformation — particularly diffuse "stolen election" narratives not targeting specific identifiable parties — and should not be understood as a comprehensive solution to the misinformation problem.