News

Fox settles with Dominion. That’s not the end of it.

Fox Corp. agreed Tuesday to pay $787 million to Dominion Voting Systems to settle a defamation suit over false claims aired by Fox News about voting machines used in the 2020 election. The deal was announced on what would have been the first day of a high-profile trial in a Delaware court that was widely seen as a test of First Amendment protections for news organizations. 

Pretrial revelations about how Fox fed misinformation to its viewers about the 2020 vote to maintain its ratings had already embarrassed the country’s most powerful conservative media outlet. And Dominion’s attorneys have claimed victory for its defense of the truth. But the settlement – among the largest ever paid by a media company – doesn’t appear to compel Fox to admit wrongdoing or issue public apologies.

Why We Wrote This

The court case between Dominion Voting Systems and Fox News reached a settlement at the last minute. But the ripple effects on the conservative network’s reputation – and its bottom line – may continue.

Still, money may speak louder than words. “$787 million is a pretty implicit admission of something,” says George Freeman, director of the Media Law Resource Center.

This is also not the end of the matter for Fox, which will have to contend with additional related lawsuits and damage to its reputation over the weeks and months to come.

Fox Corp. agreed Tuesday to pay $787 million to Dominion Voting Systems to settle a defamation suit over false claims aired by Fox News about voting machines used in the 2020 election. The deal was announced on what would have been the first day of a high-profile trial in a Delaware court that was widely seen as a test of First Amendment protections for news organizations. 

Pretrial revelations about how Fox fed misinformation to its viewers about the 2020 vote to maintain its ratings had already embarrassed the country’s most powerful conservative media outlet. And Dominion’s attorneys have claimed victory for its defense of the truth. But the settlement – among the largest ever paid by a media company – doesn’t appear to compel Fox to admit wrongdoing or issue public apologies.

Still, it is not the end of the matter for Fox, which will have to contend with additional related lawsuits and damage to its reputation over the weeks and months to come.

Why We Wrote This

The court case between Dominion Voting Systems and Fox News reached a settlement at the last minute. But the ripple effects on the conservative network’s reputation – and its bottom line – may continue.

Why did Fox agree to the settlement? 

Media defamation lawsuits rarely go to trial. Plaintiffs face a high bar to prove intent or recklessness by a news organization, and judges often dismiss suits for this reason. But many experts believed Dominion had a strong case against Fox, bolstered by pretrial rulings by Superior Court Judge Eric Davis that weakened Fox’s defense that it was simply reporting newsworthy allegations. Those allegations were the unfounded claims by former President Donald Trump and his allies, amplified by Fox hosts, that Dominion’s machines had rigged the 2020 election by flipping votes to Joe Biden. Judge Davis wrote that “evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that [it] is CRYSTAL clear that none of the statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true.”

Dominion had been demanding $1.6 billion in damages, and up until the last minute, Fox seemed to be preparing for a public defense of its reporting. Jury selection was finished on Tuesday morning, after which attorneys were due to make their opening statements. Behind closed doors, the two sides were instead finalizing a settlement.

Julio Cortez/AP

Attorneys for Dominion Voting Systems speak about the settlement with Fox News outside the courthouse in Wilmington, Delaware, April 18, 2023.

That Fox chose to pay Dominion such a large sum points to its legal vulnerability, says George Freeman, director of the Media Law Resource Center and a former in-house counsel for The New York Times. “They obviously had calculated what the odds were on what a jury would have done,” he says.

Previous ArticleNext Article