|
|
Post by BearClause on Apr 19, 2023 2:00:01 GMT -5
I don't know how many of you are knowledgeable in the legal technicalities of proving defamation. Suffice to say, under US law, it is NOT easy for the plaintiff to prove. In the landmark case The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), it is established that the plaintiff must prove "actual malice" on the part of the defendant. This is a very high burden for the plaintiff. They must show the defendant said the defamatory statement "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." The plaintiff must prove actual malice by "clear and convincing" evidence, rather than the usual burden of proof in a civil case, which is the preponderance of the evidence standard.*
*For civil cases, the burden of proof is usually lower for the plaintiff, meaning they don't need to prove to the judge or jury to the same high degree as in criminal cases (prove beyond as reasonable doubt), except for defamation cases. So for Fox News to essentially throw in the towel to admit defamation really shows the degree of their culpability. The evidence was so overwhelmingly clear showing "actual malice" on the part of Fox, in that even an otherwise tough case for the plaintiff proving defamation was hopeless for Murdoch & Co. Fox was caught with its "hand in the cookie jar", so-to-speak, there was no way for them to defend. While I suppose they didn't have that moment in the courtroom where Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Rupert Murdoch, etc. are on the witness stand and dodging all manner of embarrassing questions by Dominion's attorneys, I'd think there were still risks even though it seemed like a slam dunk. That they had them dead to rights doesn't necessarily mean that they would have gotten what they asked for. Rough estimates of Dominion Voting is that it might have been worth less than $100 million. There was a decent chance that even if they won, a jury wouldn't have awarded anything near $700 million. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Apr 19, 2023 2:22:20 GMT -5
I don't know how many of you are knowledgeable in the legal technicalities of proving defamation. Suffice to say, under US law, it is NOT easy for the plaintiff to prove. In the landmark case The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), it is established that the plaintiff must prove "actual malice" on the part of the defendant. This is a very high burden for the plaintiff. They must show the defendant said the defamatory statement "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." The plaintiff must prove actual malice by "clear and convincing" evidence, rather than the usual burden of proof in a civil case, which is the preponderance of the evidence standard.*
*For civil cases, the burden of proof is usually lower for the plaintiff, meaning they don't need to prove to the judge or jury to the same high degree as in criminal cases (prove beyond as reasonable doubt), except for defamation cases. So for Fox News to essentially throw in the towel to admit defamation really shows the degree of their culpability. The evidence was so overwhelmingly clear showing "actual malice" on the part of Fox, in that even an otherwise tough case for the plaintiff proving defamation was hopeless for Murdoch & Co. Fox was caught with its "hand in the cookie jar", so-to-speak, there was no way for them to defend. While I suppose they didn't have that moment in the courtroom where Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Rupert Murdoch, etc. are on the witness stand and dodging all manner of embarrassing questions by Dominion's attorneys, I'd think there were still risks even though it seemed like a slam dunk. That they had them dead to rights doesn't necessarily mean that they would have gotten what they asked for. Rough estimates of Dominion Voting is that it might have been worth less than $100 million. There was a decent chance that even if they won, a jury wouldn't have awarded anything near $700 million. While there is always a degree of uncertainty with actual trials, in this case, the evidence was so overwhelmingly in favor of Dominion, there really is no way Fox could win. The Fox defense may try to get off on some legal technicality or plaintiff's lawyer misconduct during trial, but neither possibilities was ever likely in this case. As for money, you are right in that the award ultimately granted by the jury may be a lot lower. But the fact is, this case was never about the money per se. Its about restoring a good name and reputation of a company who were wronged by malicious lies. |
|
|
|
Post by staticb on Apr 19, 2023 10:02:59 GMT -5
They settled for less than half of what they were asking for *and* Fox does not to admit wrong doing on air. This is about as big of a win for Fox as they could possibly get.
|
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Apr 19, 2023 10:41:48 GMT -5
While I suppose they didn't have that moment in the courtroom where Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Rupert Murdoch, etc. are on the witness stand and dodging all manner of embarrassing questions by Dominion's attorneys, I'd think there were still risks even though it seemed like a slam dunk. That they had them dead to rights doesn't necessarily mean that they would have gotten what they asked for. Rough estimates of Dominion Voting is that it might have been worth less than $100 million. There was a decent chance that even if they won, a jury wouldn't have awarded anything near $700 million. While there is always a degree of uncertainty with actual trials, in this case, the evidence was so overwhelmingly in favor of Dominion, there really is no way Fox could win. The Fox defense may try to get off on some legal technicality or plaintiff's lawyer misconduct during trial, but neither possibilities was ever likely in this case. As for money, you are right in that the award ultimately granted by the jury may be a lot lower. But the fact is, this case was never about the money per se. Its about restoring a good name and reputation of a company who were wronged by malicious lies. I would point out that Delaware requires unanimous juries. That could be part of the rationale for settling. Not that they would likely lose the case, but one holdout could force a lower award. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 19, 2023 10:46:20 GMT -5
They settled for less than half of what they were asking for *and* Fox does not to admit wrong doing on air. This is about as big of a win for Fox as they could possibly get. AND they don't have to go through 6 weeks of (embarrassing) testimony. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 19, 2023 11:08:24 GMT -5
Most of the damage has already been done to Fox. I think this settlement was mainly about neither side being willing to risk that a jury might give a $30B award or a $1 award or something like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Apr 19, 2023 11:58:18 GMT -5
Most of the damage has already been done to Fox. I think this settlement was mainly about neither side being willing to risk that a jury might give a $30B award or a $1 award or something like that. I think more likely would that a jury would look at Dominion’s financials and come to the conclusion that they’re not a multibillion dollar company whose damages are over a billion. They did have some things like Shasta County dropping them and some counties where conspiracy theorists got hold of their machines, but that’s partially driven by Mike Lindell. Absolutely Dominion did not deserve to be badmouthed like that on the basis of conspiracy theories that Fox News understood to be untrue and that they provided a platform for as well as some hosts even agreeing with on air even when they privately stated they knew it was hot garbage. It’s good that it got to an extremely damaging (to Fox News) discovery phase. Mike Lindell is going to find that he’s not going to like it as much as he said he would. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 19, 2023 12:21:58 GMT -5
Most of the damage has already been done to Fox. I think this settlement was mainly about neither side being willing to risk that a jury might give a $30B award or a $1 award or something like that. I think more likely would that a jury would look at Dominion’s financials and come to the conclusion that they’re not a multibillion dollar company whose damages are over a billion. They did have some things like Shasta County dropping them and some counties where conspiracy theorists got hold of their machines, but that’s partially driven by Mike Lindell. Absolutely Dominion did not deserve to be badmouthed like that on the basis of conspiracy theories that Fox News understood to be untrue and that they provided a platform for as well as some hosts even agreeing with on air even when they privately stated they knew it was hot garbage. It’s good that it got to an extremely damaging (to Fox News) discovery phase. Mike Lindell is going to find that he’s not going to like it as much as he said he would. I don't think a $1 award scenario was ever a serious consideration as a possibility in this case. The judge's initial findings that Fox had lied assured that would not be the case. The considerations were about the ability or willingness of the jury to find actual malice, a high bar whose probability both parties concluded was pretty good, but not certain. Actual damages and punitive damages would be dual components of the final award. If the jury found actual malice, it's quite likely the punitive award could greatly exceed the actual damages. |
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Apr 19, 2023 13:41:01 GMT -5
I think more likely would that a jury would look at Dominion’s financials and come to the conclusion that they’re not a multibillion dollar company whose damages are over a billion. They did have some things like Shasta County dropping them and some counties where conspiracy theorists got hold of their machines, but that’s partially driven by Mike Lindell. Absolutely Dominion did not deserve to be badmouthed like that on the basis of conspiracy theories that Fox News understood to be untrue and that they provided a platform for as well as some hosts even agreeing with on air even when they privately stated they knew it was hot garbage. It’s good that it got to an extremely damaging (to Fox News) discovery phase. Mike Lindell is going to find that he’s not going to like it as much as he said he would. I don't think a $1 award scenario was ever a serious consideration as a possibility in this case. The judge's initial findings that Fox had lied assured that would not be the case. The considerations were about the ability or willingness of the jury to find actual malice, a high bar whose probability both parties concluded was pretty good, but not certain. Actual damages and punitive damages would be dual components of the final award. If the jury found actual malice, it's quite likely the punitive award could greatly exceed the actual damages. A sure thing beats dealing with what a jury might decide. Even with actual malice, the numbers might not be anything close. It could be more. But I'm thinking this sure thing beats playing probabilities. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 19, 2023 14:08:29 GMT -5
I don't think a $1 award scenario was ever a serious consideration as a possibility in this case. The judge's initial findings that Fox had lied assured that would not be the case. The considerations were about the ability or willingness of the jury to find actual malice, a high bar whose probability both parties concluded was pretty good, but not certain. Actual damages and punitive damages would be dual components of the final award. If the jury found actual malice, it's quite likely the punitive award could greatly exceed the actual damages. A sure thing beats dealing with what a jury might decide. Even with actual malice, the numbers might not be anything close. It could be more. But I'm thinking this sure thing beats playing probabilities. It's obvious that whatever else we might think from the outside, Dominion decided that taking this money right now was better for them than going forward to trial. And Fox decided that paying this money right now was better for them than going forward to trial. |
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Apr 19, 2023 14:36:39 GMT -5
A sure thing beats dealing with what a jury might decide. Even with actual malice, the numbers might not be anything close. It could be more. But I'm thinking this sure thing beats playing probabilities. It's obvious that whatever else we might think from the outside, Dominion decided that taking this money right now was better for them than going forward to trial. And Fox decided that paying this money right now was better for them than going forward to trial. It's easy enough for outside observers to say that Dominion needs to bleed Fox dry. But they have a responsibility to the owners and employees. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Apr 19, 2023 19:01:05 GMT -5
While there is always a degree of uncertainty with actual trials, in this case, the evidence was so overwhelmingly in favor of Dominion, there really is no way Fox could win. The Fox defense may try to get off on some legal technicality or plaintiff's lawyer misconduct during trial, but neither possibilities was ever likely in this case. As for money, you are right in that the award ultimately granted by the jury may be a lot lower. But the fact is, this case was never about the money per se. Its about restoring a good name and reputation of a company who were wronged by malicious lies. I would point out that Delaware requires unanimous juries. That could be part of the rationale for settling. Not that they would likely lose the case, but one holdout could force a lower award. Well, like I said, money wasn't the issue. Its the Dominion's reputation that matters. |
|
|
|
Post by vbman100 on Apr 19, 2023 19:12:32 GMT -5
Dominion was not going to settle for any less than 787 million. And Fox was never going to pay more than 788 million. So they worked out a nice settlement of 787.5. It’s the .5 that really twists the knife.
|
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Apr 20, 2023 8:45:24 GMT -5
I would point out that Delaware requires unanimous juries. That could be part of the rationale for settling. Not that they would likely lose the case, but one holdout could force a lower award. Well, like I said, money wasn't the issue. Its the Dominion's reputation that matters. But a jury trial can’t restore a company’s reputation. The only remedy at trial is money. This is a company whose valuation is estimated to be less than $100 million, and they just landed over $700 million. They actually got a lukewarm acknowledgement from Fox News that they wouldn’t have gotten from a jury verdict. |
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Apr 20, 2023 9:30:20 GMT -5
Well, like I said, money wasn't the issue. Its the Dominion's reputation that matters. But a jury trial can’t restore a company’s reputation. The only remedy at trial is money. This is a company whose valuation is estimated to be less than $100 million, and they just landed over $700 million. That $700+ million figure is kind of an illusion when considering Dominion's future finances. Their net take after paying attorney fees and expenses related to the lawsuit will be a considerably smaller amount. |
|
