Newsmax Defamed Dominion in 2020 Election Coverage, Judge Rules

Newsmax Media Inc. defamed Dominion Voting Systems Inc. when the media company aired false statements about Dominion’s role in the 2020 US presidential election, a Delaware judge ruled Wednesday.

Newsmax’s statements alleging Dominion’s criminal role in the election constitute defamation per se, Judge Eric M. Davis wrote in an opinion. Davis granted Dominion summary judgment on its claims that Newsmax’s statements were materially false and that it published 18 of its defamatory statements. Davis also ruled that Newsmax isn’t shielded by the fair report privilege or the incremental harm doctrine.

Newsmax “accuses Dominion of participating in crimes, both in the United States and abroad,” Davis said. “Each statement also attacks the integrity of Dominion’s” business, and the statements “alone control whether they are defamatory per se.”

Davis declined to grant either party summary judgment on Dominion’s claim that Newsmax acted with actual malice, ruling that genuine issues of material facts exist, the opinion said. He also declined to grant Dominion summary judgment on its bids for damages and punitive damages, ruling that a jury would be best suited to decide.

Dominion sued Newsmax following the 2020 election, alleging the network engaged in a defamatory campaign against it regarding its role in former-President Joe Biden’s election victory. Newsmax published statements that alleged, among other things, that Dominion manipulated vote counts, is owned by or owns a Venezuelan company that rigged elections for Hugo Chavez, and paid kickbacks to government officials who used its machines in swing states .

Both parties moved for summary judgment in January after Davis ruled that Dominion’s claims were governed by Colorado law since it is principally based out of Denver, Colorado.

Newsmax asserted multiple defenses, including that Dominion can’t prove it published the defamatory statements, that the statements are non-actionable opinions, and that any damages are speculative, the opinion said.

But each of Newsmax’s challenged statements are defamatory per se since they suggested that Dominion aided in election fraud, Davis wrote. And whether or not the statements were opinions is irrelevant since accusations of criminal activity aren’t constitutionally protected, the opinion said.

Newsmax also failed to rebut Dominion’s claim that its statements satisfy the element of falsity, Davis wrote.

Eighteen of the 19 challenged statements constitute being published, the opinion said. A genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether Newsmax had any control over an allegedly defamatory tweet from one of its on-air personalities.

Newsmax also isn’t protected by the fair report privilege since some of its defamatory statements presented claims as fact, Davis wrote. The incremental harm doctrine also doesn’t apply to Newsmax since it only applies as an extension of the fair report privilege under Colorado law.

Newsmax also asserted that it was entitled to an offset of Dominion’s $787.5 million settlement with Fox News for the “same alleged harms.” But Davis declined to rule on the offset bid since he can’t resolve whether Dominion is seeking damages from Newsmax for harms caused by Fox.

Farnan LLP and Susman Godfrey LLP represent Dominion. Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Todd & Weld LLP and Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP represent Newsmax.

The case is US Dominion Inc. v. Newsmax Media Inc., Del. Super. Ct., No. N21C-08-063, 4/9/25.