What did the Dominion and Smartmatic lawsuits reveal about Fox News’ editorial decision-making?

1. Discovery exposed internal doubts and contested decisions

Court discovery produced emails, texts and depositions showing Fox employees and some hosts privately acknowledging problems with the fraud allegations even as the network continued to broadcast them, a thread Smartmatic and Dominion used to argue Fox “effectively endorsed and participated” in spreading falsehoods ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Those internal documents were central to Smartmatic’s claim that on-air narratives were not merely guest-driven but were echoed and amplified with awareness of their shaky evidentiary basis ^[2].

2. Ratings and commercial incentives were implicated as editorial drivers

Multiple filings and reporting revealed that discussions about election fraud coincided with ratings spikes and managerial praise for shows that boosted viewer engagement, a dynamic Smartmatic highlighted to argue that Fox’s editorial choices were driven in part by commercial incentives rather than strict verification of facts ^{[3] [7]}. Smartmatic’s filings point to producers and hosts who tracked viewership and used that leverage in programming choices, framing it as part of a broader editorial “pivot” during the post-election period ^[3].

3. Fox’s legal strategy framed coverage as legitimate news-making and protected speech

In response, Fox repeatedly argued that hosts were covering newsworthy claims from prominent figures — including then-President Trump and his lawyers — and that the First Amendment protects reporting and opinion about disputed political events, a defense highlighted in filings and court hearings ^{[6] [8] [4]}. The network has also contested the scope of damages and the characterization of internal communications, at times seeking to delay or narrow discovery on tactical grounds ^{[9] [1]}.

4. The Dominion settlement amplified the stakes and set practical precedents

Fox’s $787.5 million settlement with Dominion halted a high-profile trial and signaled the enormous financial risk media companies face when airing demonstrably false claims about private companies, a result cited by other plaintiffs and commentators as a practical precedent even where litigation continues in other cases ^{[4] [5]}. Fox’s public statement accompanying the settlement acknowledged court rulings that found “certain claims about Dominion to be false,” while not admitting broader institutional culpability ^{[4] [6]}.

5. Smartmatic’s continuing case focuses on institutional decision-making, not just rogue guests

Smartmatic’s $2.7 billion suit presses the argument that editorial decision-making was institutional: its filings and appellate rulings say allegations against hosts and executives survived challenges because the company presented detailed evidence that Fox and named personalities “knew the claims were false — or had serious doubts” when they aired ^{[2] [10]}. Courts have allowed many of those claims to proceed, and Smartmatic has asked for broad access to Fox’s prior discovery and communications to trace responsibility ^{[2] [1]}.

6. Competing narratives: accountability versus press freedom and caution about overreach

Legal scholars and free-speech advocates warn that defamation suits must not chill legitimate reporting on contested public matters, a concern Fox and some commentators raised as part of the network’s defense and as context for why covering high-profile claims can be legally sensitive ^{[8] [4]}. At the same time, plaintiffs and many observers argue the discovery record shows a pattern of editorial choices that favored amplification of sensational claims with inadequate correction, suggesting a different balance between aggressive programming and journalistic verification ^{[2] [3]}.