Washington – The high-stakes defamation lawsuit filed by Smartmatic, a global voting technology company, against right-wing media outlet Newsmax is heading to trial later this month after Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis denied the network’s motion to dismiss the case. The trial, scheduled for September 30, is set to revisit the highly contentious claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 U.S. presidential election—allegations that played a pivotal role in undermining public trust in the electoral process.
Judge Davis’s ruling on Thursday marks a serious setback for Newsmax, which has been embroiled in legal challenges since the 2020 election. The case centers on Smartmatic’s accusation that Newsmax knowingly broadcast false statements about its voting machines, alleging their involvement in a baseless conspiracy to steal the election from then-President Donald Trump. Despite attempts by Newsmax to frame the lawsuit as a threat to freedom of the press, the judge ruled that critical questions about the network’s intent and reporting practices must be decided by a jury.
Smartmatic’s Allegations: Claims of Reckless Disregard At the heart of Smartmatic’s lawsuit is the claim that Newsmax peddled the false narrative that its machines were used to manipulate votes in key battleground states, despite knowing there was no factual basis for such allegations. Smartmatic argues that Newsmax, in an attempt to capitalize on the fervor of Trump’s supporters and drive up viewership, aired these claims without proper vetting or regard for the truth. According to Smartmatic’s legal team, the network’s conduct amounts to reckless disregard for accuracy, causing significant harm to the company’s reputation and business operations.
In his ruling, Judge Davis underscored the importance of determining whether Newsmax’s coverage crossed the line from legitimate reporting to deliberate defamation. He noted that a reasonable jury could conclude that the network either acted within its journalistic rights or, alternatively, engaged in reckless behavior by amplifying unfounded claims.
“This case goes beyond the typical protections of the First Amendment,” said Smartmatic attorney Erik Connolly in a statement. “Newsmax’s actions were not just irresponsible; they were malicious, and the company must be held accountable for the damage it caused.”
Newsmax’s Defense: First Amendment Protections and Neutral Reporting For its part, Newsmax has consistently defended its 2020 election coverage as an exercise of its First Amendment rights, arguing that it was reporting on newsworthy claims that were being widely discussed in the political sphere. The network contends that its role was simply to cover the legal challenges to the election results brought by Trump and his allies, without endorsing or validating the specific allegations.
Judge Davis did allow Newsmax to proceed with one of its key defenses: that it was neutrally reporting on Trump’s election-related claims without actively endorsing them. This defense hinges on whether the network can prove that its coverage was an objective presentation of newsworthy events, rather than an intentional effort to spread misinformation.
However, this partial victory for Newsmax may not be enough to absolve the network of legal liability. If the jury finds that Newsmax acted with reckless disregard for the truth, the network could face significant financial penalties and long-lasting reputational damage.
High Stakes for Newsmax and the Media Landscape The trial will likely draw intense public scrutiny, as it involves not only Newsmax but also larger questions about the role of media organizations in shaping public perceptions of elections. A key issue is whether news outlets should be held accountable for amplifying false claims, particularly in situations where those claims contribute to widespread misinformation and undermine democracy.
If the case goes to trial as scheduled, Newsmax executives and on-air talent may be required to testify, revealing behind-the-scenes discussions and decision-making processes that could further tarnish the network’s image. Such testimonies could shed light on how Newsmax handled its post-election coverage and whether its actions were driven by journalistic standards or the pursuit of ratings.
Although the network issued a clarification in December 2020, acknowledging that it had found no evidence of voter manipulation by Smartmatic or Dominion Voting Systems, Smartmatic’s legal team argues that this belated statement does not absolve Newsmax of responsibility for the damage it caused in the weeks following the election.
Wider Implications for the Media This case comes at a time when concerns about the spread of misinformation have reached a critical level, with media organizations facing increasing scrutiny for their role in amplifying false narratives. The outcome of this trial could set an important legal precedent for how defamation laws are applied to news outlets, particularly in politically charged environments. As the 2024 presidential race heats up, the trial also highlights the ongoing tension between the need for a free press and the responsibility of media organizations to provide accurate and balanced reporting. A verdict against Newsmax could encourage other news organizations to take a more cautious approach to reporting on election-related controversies in the future.
