A legal battle is brewing that could reshape not only the future of Fox News but also the broader boundaries of journalistic freedom and corporate responsibility in America. Voting technology firm Smartmatic is suing Fox News, its parent company Fox Corporation, and several of its high-profile anchors and guests for $2.7 billion in damages, accusing the network of promoting baseless election fraud claims after the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

With a potential trial looming in 2025 or 2026, the stakes go far beyond any single network or corporation. The outcome could set historic precedents for how far the media can go in amplifying controversial political narratives—and what happens when they cross the line.

What Sparked the Lawsuit?

In the chaotic weeks following the 2020 election, Fox News was among several media outlets that aired conspiracy-laden claims from Trump allies suggesting widespread election fraud. Some of the most explosive allegations centered around Smartmatic, a Florida-based voting technology company.

Fox personalities—including Maria Bartiromo and Lou Dobbs, along with guests like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell—repeatedly suggested Smartmatic’s software was used to alter votes in favor of President Joe Biden. But Smartmatic says those claims were unequivocally false and deeply damaging—especially given that its technology was only used in Los Angeles County, and nowhere near the swing states where the fraud narrative was concentrated.

Smartmatic filed its suit in February 2021, alleging that Fox’s broadcasts turned it into a scapegoat in a post-election misinformation campaign. The 285-page complaint cited more than 100 false or misleading claims, arguing that the coverage “decimated” the company’s business, drove away clients, and led to harassment—including threats against a company executive’s 14-year-old son.

Fox’s Response: First Amendment Defense

Fox News has denied wrongdoing, insisting it was merely reporting on newsworthy allegations made by prominent public figures. It argues the case is an attack on press freedom, and that the claims made on-air fall under the protection of the First Amendment.

Fox has also called Smartmatic’s demand for $2.7 billion “implausible,” arguing that the company’s business was already struggling before 2020 due to unrelated legal issues—including a bribery investigation involving Smartmatic executives in the Philippines.

Despite those claims, Fox faces mounting legal pressure. In January 2025, a New York appeals court ruled that Fox Corporation itself could be held liable, not just its news division. That ruling cleared the way for Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch—the company’s top executives—to be directly named in trial proceedings.

The Legal Stakes: Echoes of Dominion

The case closely mirrors Fox’s recent entanglement with Dominion Voting Systems, which resulted in a $787.5 million settlement in 2023—the largest known defamation payout in U.S. media history. Dominion, like Smartmatic, accused Fox of airing false fraud claims after the 2020 election.

Smartmatic’s lawyers are aiming for even more. They argue that the damage to Smartmatic’s smaller U.S. footprint makes the defamation worse—turning a niche provider into the face of a global conspiracy theory

In both cases, internal Fox communications surfaced showing that hosts and executives privately questioned the veracity of the fraud claims they were broadcasting. Smartmatic is likely to present similar evidence to prove “actual malice”—a legal standard that requires plaintiffs to show that defamatory statements were made with knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.

Key Developments So Far

Summary Judgment Motions Filed: In May 2025, both sides filed motions for summary judgment. Smartmatic accused Fox of knowingly spreading falsehoods to retain viewers drifting toward Newsmax and OANN, while Fox reiterated its claims that Smartmatic’s financial woes were unrelated to the coverage.

Evidence Disputes: Smartmatic claims Fox destroyed key evidence, including text messages from Rupert Murdoch, while Fox scored a win in gaining access to documents related to Smartmatic’s Philippines bribery probe.

Board Subpoenas: Smartmatic has subpoenaed four members of the Fox Corporation board, arguing they failed to intervene even as executives knew the election claims were false.

This lawsuit isn’t just about reputational damage—it’s a reckoning over how the media handles disinformation. Legal scholars see the Smartmatic case as a critical test of whether the First Amendment shields media outlets when they amplify politically charged claims that may not be rooted in fact.

For Fox, the outcome could be existential. A jury ruling against the network—and especially its parent company—could unleash billions in damages, trigger leadership shake-ups, and force fundamental changes in how the network covers political content.

For Smartmatic, a victory would restore its global standing and validate its claim that it was unfairly targeted. But the broader consequence would be a signal to all media companies: accuracy matters, and there are consequences when the line between journalism and entertainment blurs too far.

Will There Be a Trial?

While Dominion settled before going to trial, neither Fox nor Smartmatic has publicly indicated a willingness to settle this case. If the legal motions fail and the court denies summary judgment, the trial could begin as early as late 2025 or sometime in 2026—with Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch potentially testifying in open court.

Given the political and cultural stakes, it could become one of the most closely watched media trials in U.S. history.

A Crossroads for Truth in Media

As the legal machinery grinds on, Americans are once again confronting difficult questions about how information spreads, how accountability is enforced, and whether truth can survive in an era of partisan echo chambers.

The Smartmatic v. Fox News lawsuit isn’t just a legal clash—it’s a symbolic one, pitting claims of press freedom against allegations of calculated disinformation. The verdict, whether in court or in public opinion, will echo far beyond the courtroom.

The outcome could help shape the next generation of American journalism—or underscore the high cost of getting the facts wrong.