What legal settlements prompted Fox News to correct or retract statements (e.g., Dominion, Smartmatic)
Executive summary
Fox News’ most consequential correction and public acknowledgments about its 2020 election coverage flowed from a $787.5 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems, while Smartmatic’s separate litigation prompted retraction demands and further document disclosures even as its much larger $2.7 billion case against Fox remained unresolved; smaller outlets such as Newsmax and OANN also reached settlements or confidential resolutions that produced apologies or corrections [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Dominion’s $787.5 million settlement forced Fox to publicly acknowledge false statements
On the eve of trial in April 2023, Fox agreed to pay Dominion roughly $787.5 million and issued language acknowledging that a judge had found the network’s on-air statements in the Dominion suit were false — a public step short of an explicit scripted on-air apology but functionally a corrective moment tied directly to the monetary settlement [1] [2].
2. Smartmatic demanded retractions and pressed for more than Dominion’s payout, but Fox did not settle that case
Smartmatic issued formal retraction demand letters to Fox, Newsmax and OANN early in the litigation and later filed a $2.7 billion defamation suit alleging Fox hosts and executives “effectively endorsed and participated” in false claims; Smartmatic’s lawyers publicly said they would seek a larger payout than Dominion’s and an explicit “full retraction,” and as of the reporting Smartmatic’s case against Fox remained active and unresolved [4] [5] [2] [1].
3. Newsmax and OANN: smaller settlements yielded clearer retractions or apologies
Smartmatic’s threats and suits produced earlier, explicit corrections from other outlets: Newsmax reached a settlement with Smartmatic and publicly apologized for airing false allegations about voter‑machine manipulation, and OANN’s litigation with Smartmatic was resolved through a confidential settlement according to reporting — outcomes that contrast with Fox’s more muted post‑settlement language [3] [6] [4].
4. What constituted a “retraction” or “correction” in practice was contested
Dominion’s settlement led Fox to acknowledge judicial findings that certain statements were false in a press statement, but Dominion’s lawyers and outside observers noted Fox did not provide the kind of on‑air rolling retraction Dominion sought; Smartmatic’s counsel publicly insisted a true settlement would have to include a full retraction and apology, reflecting competing views over what remedies are meaningful both legally and in the court of public opinion [2] [7] [8].
5. Settlements as legal tactic and public signal — motives and implications
Legal observers told Reuters and other outlets that Fox’s large Dominion payout signaled willingness to settle major exposure and could influence Smartmatic talks, while critics argue settlements can be used to avoid fuller discovery or accountability at trial; Smartmatic’s continued litigation strategy — demanding both more money and an explicit retraction — underscores that monetary payments alone are not universally seen as sufficient redress for reputational harm [1] [2] [5].
6. Limits of the public record and competing narratives
Available sources document the Dominion settlement, Smartmatic’s demands and other outlets’ settlements, but do not show Fox issuing a comprehensive on‑air retraction that Smartmatic deems adequate; Fox’s public statements characterize the Dominion deal as a step toward moving past litigation while Smartmatic frames financial parity plus a formal apology as necessary — a factual standoff reflected in court filings and media statements [1] [2] [6].