(360) 733-3773 Bellingham, WA

SHEPARD_ALLEN2

Archive for News

New York Sues Ghost Gun Sellers in Landmark Firearm Regulation Case

Posted by David Brown 
· July 29, 2025 

New York Sues Ghost Gun Sellers in Landmark Firearm Regulation Case

New York has filed a sweeping lawsuit against several companies accused of selling untraceable “ghost guns,” escalating the fight over firearm regulation and public safety. The lawsuit targets manufacturers and distributors who allegedly shipped parts and kits into the state that can be easily assembled into fully functioning firearms without serial numbers or background checks.

What happens when guns can’t be traced? According to New York’s Attorney General, ghost guns have fueled a wave of violent crime because they leave law enforcement with no way to track the weapons used. The lawsuit alleges these companies violated state law by selling products designed to circumvent existing firearm regulations. Prosecutors argue that the defendants knowingly profited from a dangerous market, even after being warned that their products were illegal in New York.

The complaint details instances where ghost guns were recovered at crime scenes, often connected to gang violence or other serious offenses. Unlike traditional firearms, these weapons can be purchased online and built at home with little effort, making them especially appealing to people barred from owning guns. The lawsuit claims this business model isn’t an accident — it’s the point.

Can the state hold these sellers accountable? That’s the central question. Federal law has long regulated the sale of completed firearms, but the legal framework hasn’t fully caught up with the rise of gun kits. New York’s lawsuit argues that ghost gun sellers are deliberately exploiting loopholes in federal oversight while ignoring state-level bans. If the court agrees, it could reshape how online firearm parts are marketed and sold nationwide.

The companies named in the lawsuit are expected to fight back. They will likely argue that their products are legal gun parts, not firearms, and that customers are responsible for following the law. Some industry groups also claim that banning kits infringes on the Second Amendment. But New York’s Attorney General says the state has clear authority to stop businesses from flooding the market with untraceable weapons that threaten public safety.

Why does this case matter beyond New York? Ghost guns have become a national issue. Law enforcement agencies in multiple states report sharp increases in these unregistered weapons, which are almost impossible to trace when recovered. If New York wins, it could set a precedent for other states to sue ghost gun sellers and tighten regulations on firearm kits.

And what about the average citizen? This lawsuit isn’t just about crime statistics. It’s about whether communities should be protected from weapons designed to evade accountability. Ghost guns make investigations harder, prosecutions tougher, and neighborhoods less safe. The question is whether courts will allow this growing market to continue unchecked.

New York’s lawsuit could mark a turning point. By challenging the companies at the heart of the ghost gun industry, the state hopes to close a dangerous loophole — and send a message that untraceable weapons won’t be tolerated.

Categories : News
Tags : , , , , , , , ,

Texas AG Ken Paxton Sues Pfizer Over Alleged COVID Vaccine Claims

Posted by David Brown 
· July 24, 2025 

Texas AG Ken Paxton Sues Pfizer Over Alleged COVID Vaccine Claims

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, accusing the company of misleading the public about the effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine. The lawsuit claims that Pfizer exaggerated its clinical trial results and censored critics to maintain public support and secure billions in government contracts. It’s a case that could reshape the legal boundaries between public health, free speech, and corporate accountability.

Can a company be sued for overpromising hope during a pandemic? That’s the core of the argument. The lawsuit alleges that Pfizer’s early claims — specifically that its vaccine was “95% effective” — misled the public and policymakers. According to Paxton, internal company communications show that executives knew the vaccine’s effectiveness would vary over time and by variant but continued using the 95% figure in marketing and media interviews long after that data no longer applied.

Pfizer has denied the allegations, calling the lawsuit politically motivated and scientifically unfounded. The company maintains that its data was thoroughly reviewed by federal regulators and that all marketing materials were consistent with FDA guidance. But the lawsuit insists that the company went further — not just promoting its product, but allegedly suppressing independent voices that questioned it.

Does this case have legs in court? Legal experts are split. On one hand, drug companies are subject to strict rules when it comes to product claims. Misleading the public — particularly during a health emergency — can carry real consequences. On the other hand, Pfizer will likely argue that it followed federal protocols, provided full transparency to the FDA, and that changing virus conditions aren’t grounds for retroactive liability.

Why is Texas leading this charge? Paxton has made headlines before for challenging federal agencies and large corporations. Some see the lawsuit as an extension of broader political narratives around vaccine skepticism and government overreach. Others believe it represents a genuine effort to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for their role in one of the most high-stakes public health rollouts in modern history.

What does this mean for future health crises? If the court sides with Texas, it could force pharmaceutical companies to take a more cautious, detailed approach in public communications — especially under emergency conditions. It could also lead to more litigation when public trust erodes, regardless of whether the underlying science was sound.

And what about the public? Millions of people took the vaccine based on the belief that it was not only effective but essential. This lawsuit calls into question whether all the facts were shared, and whether dissenting views were unfairly silenced. Even if Pfizer is cleared, the case underscores how fragile public confidence can be — and how legal systems are now being used to interrogate the pandemic’s information flow.

This is more than a fight over a number. It’s a battle over transparency, trust, and who gets to shape the narrative when lives are on the line.

 

Categories : News
Tags : , , , , , , , ,

Arkansas Faces Federal Lawsuit Over Book Bans in Public Libraries

Posted by David Brown 
· July 17, 2025 

Arkansas Faces Federal Lawsuit Over Book Bans in Public Libraries

Arkansas is now at the center of a legal firestorm after civil rights groups filed a federal lawsuit challenging the state’s efforts to ban certain books from public libraries. The plaintiffs argue that recent legislation aimed at restricting access to “harmful” or “obscene” materials violates the First Amendment and unfairly targets books related to race, gender identity, and sexual orientation.

Can the government decide what books are too dangerous for the public to read? That’s the question driving this case. The lawsuit claims the state’s new law is overly vague and gives local officials too much power to remove books based on political or moral objections. Plaintiffs include librarians, parents, authors, and advocacy groups who say the law is being used to silence specific viewpoints under the guise of protecting children.

According to the complaint, the law doesn’t just allow censorship — it demands it. Librarians and educators face criminal penalties for making certain books available, even if those materials have long been considered age-appropriate or educational. In effect, the lawsuit argues, the state is punishing people for doing their jobs.

Who gets to decide what’s appropriate? That question lies at the heart of the First Amendment. The Constitution doesn’t allow the government to suppress ideas just because they’re unpopular or controversial. The plaintiffs say Arkansas is crossing a constitutional line by weaponizing vague language to remove books that discuss topics some lawmakers simply don’t like.

Supporters of the law claim they’re protecting minors from explicit content. But critics say that justification is often a smokescreen for broader ideological censorship. Many of the targeted books are written by or about LGBTQ+ people, people of color, or historical events that challenge dominant narratives. The lawsuit argues that banning these books erases vital perspectives and denies young readers access to diverse ideas.

What’s at stake if the court sides with Arkansas? Legal scholars warn it could create a chilling effect nationwide, where librarians and educators feel forced to self-censor to avoid punishment. If states are allowed to criminalize book access based on shifting political winds, the freedom to read — and the freedom to teach — could erode quickly.

This case goes beyond book titles. It’s about whether the government can control the flow of information in a public space. Libraries have long been defended as places of open inquiry, where communities can access all kinds of knowledge, not just what those in power approve.

If the lawsuit succeeds, it could stop similar efforts in other states and reaffirm long-standing legal protections for public education and free speech. But if Arkansas wins, expect more challenges to follow — not just in libraries, but in schools, universities, and anywhere knowledge is exchanged.

In a democracy, ideas must be debated, not banned. The courtroom may now decide whether Arkansas forgot that.

Categories : News
Tags : , , , , , , , ,

Florida Judge Blocks State Ban on Social Media for Kids Under 14

Posted by David Brown 
· July 15, 2025 

Florida Judge Blocks State Ban on Social Media for Kids Under 14

A Florida judge has just delivered a major blow to a controversial law aimed at banning children under 14 from using social media. The ruling blocks enforcement of the law, which was set to go into effect this month, arguing it likely violates the First Amendment rights of both children and social media platforms. In doing so, the court has ignited a nationwide debate over free speech, parental rights, and government overreach in the digital age.

Can a state stop kids from having access to online speech just because it thinks it’s harmful? That’s the question at the heart of this case. The Florida law, signed earlier this year, would have required social media companies to verify users’ ages, ban those under 14, and require parental consent for teens between 14 and 16. Lawmakers said it was meant to protect children from harmful content and addictive algorithms. But critics say it was rushed, poorly written, and unconstitutional.

The judge sided with the challengers — including tech industry groups and civil liberties organizations — who argued that the law was overly broad and infringed on free expression. The court made it clear: simply disliking what’s on the internet is not a legal reason to ban access to it.

Why does this ruling matter beyond Florida? Other states are considering similar legislation. This decision sends a clear message: blanket bans may not survive legal scrutiny. Courts have long held that children have some First Amendment protections, and that restrictions must be narrowly tailored. This law, the judge said, failed that test.

Supporters of the law insist they’re trying to protect mental health, citing rising anxiety, depression, and cyberbullying among youth. But the court wasn’t convinced that banning all social media access under a certain age — regardless of the content or context — was a reasonable or effective solution. And that opens the door to new lawsuits in other states.

What responsibility do platforms have? Social media companies have tools for parental control and content moderation, but those are optional. Florida’s law would have forced companies to block accounts entirely, which the judge argued is more about censorship than safety. At what point does regulation become restriction? And who gets to decide?

Parents are left wondering: if the government can’t step in, are they on their own? The ruling highlights a growing legal tension. Some believe parents should have full authority to manage their kids’ digital lives — not lawmakers. Others argue that without regulation, tech companies will continue to exploit vulnerable users. But this case makes one thing clear: any law that limits access to speech — even with good intentions — must meet strict legal standards.

The judge’s order is temporary, but powerful. It halts enforcement while the case moves forward, and it suggests the full law may ultimately be struck down. That means states looking to regulate online behavior will need to get more creative — and more constitutional — in their approach.

For now, the fight over digital childhood is just beginning. This ruling may not be the final word, but it forces lawmakers to confront a reality they may have tried to bypass: rights don’t disappear just because the user is young.

Categories : News
Tags : , , , , , , , ,

Amazon Sued for Allegedly Allowing Fake Products That Harmed Consumers

Posted by David Brown 
· July 10, 2025 

Amazon Sued for Allegedly Allowing Fake Products That Harmed Consumers

Amazon is once again under legal fire — this time over claims that it allowed counterfeit and dangerous products to be sold on its platform, resulting in serious harm to consumers. A group of plaintiffs across multiple states has filed a lawsuit accusing the retail giant of negligence, deceptive practices, and failure to protect the public from third-party sellers who list fake, unsafe, or untested goods.

What happens when trust in a platform replaces due diligence? The lawsuit argues that Amazon’s dominance in the e-commerce world has led consumers to assume safety and quality — even when the products they’re buying come from unverified sellers overseas. Plaintiffs describe injuries, allergic reactions, and property damage caused by products that bore fake brand labels, misleading claims, or counterfeit certifications.

Amazon’s business model is central to the case. While it operates as a marketplace, the plaintiffs say Amazon exerts control over listings, fulfillment, and even packaging. That control, they argue, comes with responsibility. The lawsuit claims Amazon profited from every sale while turning a blind eye to the risks — especially when repeat complaints surfaced about specific sellers or product types.

Can Amazon be held liable for what others sell on its platform? That legal question has been debated for years. Traditionally, courts treated Amazon like a digital mall — hosting vendors, but not accountable for what they sell. But in recent rulings, some judges have signaled that Amazon’s deep integration with logistics and advertising may blur that line. When the company handles payment, warehousing, shipping, and returns, is it still just a middleman?

Amazon has responded by pointing to its investment in safety systems and counterfeit detection. The company says it removes millions of listings every year and works closely with brands to stop fraudulent activity. But critics argue those efforts aren’t enough. They say reactive enforcement leaves consumers exposed — especially when dangerous products are allowed to stay online even after warnings.

The lawsuit goes further, claiming that Amazon’s algorithm actively promotes questionable products by prioritizing lower price and volume over verified safety. That, they argue, creates a system where cheap, unsafe goods are rewarded — and the consumer pays the price.

Should online marketplaces be treated like retailers when harm occurs? This case could set a major precedent. If Amazon is held responsible, other platforms — from Etsy to eBay — may be forced to overhaul how they vet sellers and monitor product claims. That could reshape the digital marketplace in favor of consumer safety, but also raise operational costs.

Who stands to gain if the plaintiffs win? Anyone who’s ever bought a product online and assumed it was real, safe, and reviewed honestly. This case is about trust — the invisible agreement between buyer and platform. When that trust is broken, the question becomes: who pays?

The answer may soon be decided in court. And it could change how the internet’s biggest store does business.

Categories : News
Tags : , , , , , , , ,

NCAA Settlement – College Athletes to Receive Revenue Share Starting 2025

Posted by David Brown 
· July 8, 2025 

NCAA Settlement – College Athletes to Receive Revenue Share Starting 2025

A landmark legal shift has hit college sports. The NCAA has agreed to settle multiple antitrust lawsuits by allowing student-athletes to receive a share of the revenue they help generate — ending a decades-long battle over compensation in amateur athletics. Beginning in 2025, players in major college sports will be eligible to receive direct payments from their schools, marking the most significant change to the NCAA model in its history.

Why is this happening now? The legal pressure became too intense to ignore. After years of lawsuits claiming the NCAA unfairly restricted players from earning money, the courts made it clear: denying athletes a fair share of the profits may violate federal antitrust laws. With TV contracts, sponsorships, and playoff deals worth billions, schools have been raking in revenue while players, until recently, received nothing beyond tuition, books, and room and board.

Can athletes now become employees? Not exactly. This agreement doesn’t turn student-athletes into employees under the law — yet. But it does signal that the wall separating education from profit is finally coming down. Athletes have already been allowed to earn money from their name, image, and likeness (NIL) since 2021. This new revenue-sharing model pushes things further, providing scheduled, school-funded payments tied directly to athletic department earnings.

The settlement — reportedly worth over $2.7 billion over 10 years — not only resolves past legal claims but lays the groundwork for future earnings. Some athletes may receive tens of thousands of dollars per year, depending on the school and sport. Football and men’s basketball, which generate the majority of revenue, are expected to see the largest distributions. But the deal includes provisions for women’s sports and Olympic-level programs as well.

Does this mean the NCAA’s amateur model is over? In many ways, yes. For years, the NCAA insisted on preserving “amateurism” — the idea that college sports were pure and non-commercial. That illusion shattered as TV ratings soared, coaching salaries ballooned, and schools built multimillion-dollar facilities on the backs of unpaid athletes. The courts didn’t buy the argument that these students were “amateurs” in any meaningful sense. Neither did the public.

What are the risks? Critics warn this could create an imbalance between wealthy programs and smaller schools. Others say it opens the door to employment lawsuits and unionization efforts. Still, the NCAA likely viewed settlement as the better option compared to a courtroom loss that could dismantle its control entirely.

Who wins in all this? The players, without a doubt. Athletes who dedicate years to grueling training, suffer injuries, and risk their futures will finally receive more than a scholarship in return. They’ve won in court, in public opinion, and now in policy.

But this isn’t just a win for athletes. It’s a moment of legal reckoning for how power, money, and fairness collide in American institutions. The NCAA’s monopoly over college sports has been challenged — and changed — not by internal reform, but by lawsuits demanding justice.

As college football kicks off next season, fans will see more than games. They’ll see a new era — one shaped not just by tradition, but by accountability.

Categories : News
Tags : , , , , , , , ,

AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile Hit With $8 Billion Lawsuit Over Selling Customer Location Data

Posted by David Brown 
· July 3, 2025 

AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile Hit With $8 Billion Lawsuit Over Selling Customer Location Data

Three of the largest telecom companies in America — AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile — are now facing an $8 billion lawsuit that could redefine what privacy means in the digital age. The lawsuit, filed by a coalition of plaintiffs from multiple states, alleges that these companies secretly sold customers’ real-time location data to third parties without consent. And the result, they claim, has been dangerous, even life-threatening.

What happens when your phone becomes a tracking device without your knowledge? According to the complaint, telecom giants profited by giving access to private customer location data — often down to the street corner — to bounty hunters, marketers, and surveillance firms. In some cases, the data allegedly ended up in the hands of stalkers and abusers. Victims say they never agreed to this. The carriers say otherwise.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) already fined these companies a combined $200 million in 2020 for similar behavior, but this new legal action goes even further. It doesn’t just seek financial penalties — it demands real accountability. Plaintiffs want the telecoms to admit wrongdoing and fund efforts to protect users from ongoing data abuse. This is about more than money. It’s about restoring public trust in an industry that many feel has quietly crossed a line.

How could this happen under existing privacy laws? That question is now front and center. Telecom companies are required by law to protect customer data — including location — under the federal Communications Act. But critics say the rules are outdated and easily bypassed through vague user agreements and third-party loopholes. According to internal reports cited in the case, some companies allowed vendors to access location data with little oversight, even after executives were warned about the risks.

The telecoms have denied any current wrongdoing. They claim any past issues have been addressed, and that consumers now have tools to opt out of data sharing. But those suing say that’s not enough. Many users were unaware their data was ever collected in the first place — let alone sold. The complaint outlines specific cases where individuals were targeted or harmed after their phone location was obtained by third parties. These aren’t abstract fears. They’re real events.

Should companies be able to profit off your physical movements? The heart of the lawsuit asks this question directly. Plaintiffs argue that location data is deeply personal — and that selling it without clear consent violates not only federal law but basic human dignity. This lawsuit is a test of whether privacy still has meaning in a time when every click, call, and movement can be monetized.

What happens next could shape how tech and telecom firms operate for years. If the plaintiffs win, companies might face stricter rules around consent, auditing, and transparency. That could mean rewriting how user data is handled across the board — not just by telecoms, but by every business that collects it.

And what does this mean for the average person? The lawsuit is a reminder that even your quietest moments — walking your dog, visiting your doctor, or taking your child to school — may not be as private as you think. If this case succeeds, it could bring long-overdue limits on how far corporate surveillance can reach into our daily lives.

In a world where data is currency, the question becomes: Who owns your location? And who pays the price when that line is crossed?

Categories : News
Tags : , , , , , , , , ,

California Sues Big Oil for Allegedly Misleading Public on Climate Change

Posted by David Brown 
· July 1, 2025 

California Sues Big Oil for Allegedly Misleading Public on Climate Change

California is taking Big Oil to court — and this time, it’s personal. In a bold legal move, the state’s Attorney General filed a lawsuit accusing some of the largest fossil fuel companies in the world of lying to the public for decades. The lawsuit claims these corporations knew — as early as the 1960s — that burning oil, gas, and coal was harming the planet. But instead of warning the public, they allegedly chose to fund campaigns that denied or downplayed the threat.

Why would a company hide that kind of information? The state’s argument is simple: money. According to the complaint, companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, and ConocoPhillips prioritized short-term profits over public safety. Internal documents reportedly show that these corporations had detailed scientific models predicting climate chaos long before it became part of the global conversation. Yet publicly, they promoted doubt, attacked environmental regulations, and funded think tanks to delay climate action.

What happens when the public is misled at this scale? California points to wildfires, heat waves, sea level rise, and billion-dollar infrastructure damage as just a few of the consequences. These aren’t abstract risks anymore. They’re emergencies — and taxpayers are the ones footing the bill. The lawsuit aims to hold Big Oil accountable, not just by demanding damages, but by requiring the companies to help fund climate mitigation moving forward.

Can a state really win against global oil giants? It’s been tried before, but California is uniquely positioned. It’s the world’s fifth-largest economy and has some of the strongest environmental laws in the U.S. This isn’t just symbolic. If successful, the lawsuit could trigger a wave of similar actions across other states and cities — shifting the legal landscape for corporate responsibility in the climate era.

Oil companies have responded predictably. Chevron dismissed the suit as “meritless.” Others accused California of politicizing climate issues. They argue that energy production is a shared societal responsibility and that they are now investing in lower-carbon solutions. But California’s lawsuit isn’t about what they’re doing now — it’s about what they hid from the world when we needed the truth most.

Does this lawsuit open the door for broader accountability? That’s the real question. If companies can be held liable for knowingly spreading misinformation that caused environmental and economic harm, the legal system could become a powerful tool for climate justice. This case challenges the idea that profit-driven deception should go unpunished, especially when the stakes are planetary.

What about the average citizen? Californians — and people everywhere — have a right to know the truth about the products they’re using and the systems they depend on. When corporations bend reality for decades, entire generations are left vulnerable. Rising insurance rates, asthma rates, floods, droughts — these impacts don’t stay on paper. They show up at your doorstep.

This lawsuit asks a powerful question: What if they had told the truth?

Everyone has a role to play in reversing climate damage. But those who knowingly steered us off course should be held accountable first. California’s legal action isn’t just about the past — it’s a warning to every industry shaping our future: you can’t build an empire on a lie and expect no one to notice.

Categories : News
Tags : , , , , , , , , ,

Walmart Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over False Advertising of Weighted Products

Posted by David Brown 
· June 26, 2025 

Walmart Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over False Advertising of Weighted Products

Walmart has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit brought by consumers who accused the retail giant of falsely advertising the net weight of certain household and food items. The settlement, which includes a multi-million dollar payout and changes to product labeling practices, marks another major example of corporate accountability in the consumer goods sector.

The lawsuit alleged that Walmart sold products with labels that overstated the quantity or weight of the contents inside. Consumers reported that some packages contained as much as 15% less than what was promised. Affected items ranged from packaged produce to cleaning supplies and even protein powders.

Plaintiffs argued that Walmart violated state and federal consumer protection laws by misleading customers at the point of purchase. The complaint detailed instances where the shelf label and packaging both reflected inaccurate weights, leading to inflated prices per unit.

Attorneys representing the plaintiffs said the issue wasn’t isolated. “This was not a one-off mistake. It was a pattern of overstatement that cost consumers millions collectively,” one attorney explained. “People trust the information printed on packaging. When that information is wrong, it’s not just misleading—it’s unlawful.”

Walmart has denied any wrongdoing but agreed to a financial settlement of $6.5 million to resolve the claims. The money will be used to reimburse consumers who purchased the mislabeled products between 2018 and 2023. Eligible consumers will be able to file claims online and receive compensation based on proof of purchase or estimated quantities purchased.

In addition to the payout, Walmart has pledged to update its packaging and improve its internal auditing process. A spokesperson for the company said, “While we believe our labeling practices met industry standards, we are committed to transparency and accuracy for our customers. This settlement allows us to move forward without prolonged litigation.”

Legal analysts say the case highlights the importance of accurate labeling, especially in an economy where families closely monitor grocery and household spending. Even small discrepancies in weight can add up over time, particularly for budget-conscious consumers.

The lawsuit follows a growing trend of class actions targeting deceptive marketing and packaging claims. In recent years, companies across the food, beauty, and household product industries have faced lawsuits for misrepresenting ingredients, product volume, or functionality.

Consumer watchdog groups applauded the outcome, calling it a win for everyday shoppers. “This case reminds companies that they will be held accountable when they exaggerate claims on packaging. Consumers deserve honesty—especially from the largest retailers in the country,” said a spokesperson from a national consumer advocacy organization.

The settlement still requires final approval from a federal judge, but no objections are expected. If approved, Walmart will begin issuing reimbursements by the end of the year.

For now, consumers are being encouraged to review their past purchases and save receipts for any eligible products.

Categories : News
Tags : , , , , , , , , ,

Fox News’ $787.5 Million Settlement with Dominion Voting Systems

Posted by David Brown 
· June 24, 2025 

Fox News’ $787.5 Million Settlement with Dominion Voting Systems

In one of the most consequential defamation settlements in U.S. media history, Fox News agreed to pay $787.5 million to Dominion Voting Systems to resolve a lawsuit alleging the network knowingly aired false claims that the company rigged the 2020 presidential election. The case, which was moments away from going to trial in Delaware Superior Court, brought renewed scrutiny to the boundaries of free speech, journalistic responsibility, and media accountability.

Dominion’s lawsuit accused Fox News of repeatedly promoting conspiracy theories involving the company’s voting machines after the 2020 election, despite internal messages and emails showing that many of the network’s top hosts and executives knew the claims were untrue. According to court documents, Fox personalities amplified the narratives to appease their audience and compete with rival outlets, fearing a loss in ratings and viewership following President Trump’s defeat.

Fox hosts and producers were shown in discovery to have expressed disbelief or skepticism about the claims being aired. Yet they continued to give airtime to guests and contributors spreading theories about Dominion’s role in supposed election fraud. The discrepancy between what was publicly reported and privately believed became a central piece of evidence that pushed Fox closer to settlement.

The $787.5 million payout represents one of the largest known defamation settlements involving a media company. Although Fox did not admit liability in the settlement, legal analysts say the sheer size of the payout signals the network’s concern about the potential damages a jury trial could have brought, particularly with a jury selected and opening statements hours away. The judge had already ruled that the claims about Dominion aired on Fox were false, leaving the jury to decide whether Fox acted with “actual malice.”

Dominion, which supplies voting machines to jurisdictions nationwide, claimed that Fox’s repeated airing of false allegations caused serious reputational damage, leading to threats against its employees, lost business opportunities, and erosion of public trust in the electoral system. While Dominion originally sought $1.6 billion in damages, the settlement still marks a resounding legal and symbolic victory for the company.

Fox News issued a brief statement following the agreement, stating: “We acknowledge the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false. This settlement reflects Fox’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards.”

Legal experts note that this case may have long-term consequences for media outlets navigating political polarization, misinformation, and the First Amendment. While Fox avoided a public trial, the discovery process made public thousands of pages of emails, texts, and depositions revealing inner workings of the network during a period of national unrest.

The case also sends a message to other media entities: airing knowingly false claims, even in the name of audience engagement, can carry massive legal and financial consequences. Other voting technology firms, such as Smartmatic, have pending lawsuits that could follow a similar path.

Categories : News
Tags : , , , , , , , , ,
Next Page »

Bellingham Office:

2011 Young Street
Suite 202
Bellingham, WA  98225
(360) 733-3773 or 647-4567
(360) 647-9060 (facsimile)
info@saalawoffice.com

shepard_allen