What legal actions did US media companies take in response to protests?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
U.S. media companies and outlets have been swept into a wave of litigation and settlements tied to political protests, the Trump presidency and disputes over new technologies: major settlements include ABC’s $15 million payment and Meta’s $25 million payment to Donald Trump, while legacy publishers are suing AI companies like Perplexity for alleged copyright infringement [1] [2] [3]. Observers and press-rights groups say these suits — whether dismissed, settled or ongoing — impose heavy costs on newsrooms and may chill reporting even when courts later rebuff plaintiffs [4] [5].
1. Lawsuits as a tool of political retaliation: what outlets faced and why
Since late 2024 and into 2025, President Trump and allied actors filed or threatened a string of lawsuits against mainstream outlets and pollsters — examples include a suit against the Des Moines Register and pollster Ann Selzer and high-profile suits that ended in settlements with ABC and CBS — framed as responses to coverage and polling the plaintiffs say damaged them [3] [6]. Rights groups including Reporters Without Borders argue these actions are part of a broader “vengeful” strategy that need not win in court to succeed because the legal drag harms outlets’ resources and chills future coverage [5].
2. High-dollar settlements and their chilling effect
Some media companies chose settlement rather than protracted litigation: ABC agreed to a $15 million settlement with Trump, and Meta agreed to pay Trump $25 million over his suspensions from Facebook and Instagram — settlements that critics say achieve their objective even if claims lack legal merit [1] [3]. Advocacy groups note that settlements, regardless of outcome, achieve a practical effect: they impose financial and reputational costs that smaller outlets in particular may not absorb, altering newsroom behavior [5].
3. Courts push back — but not always quickly enough
Legal filings and court decisions show pushback against many of these suits: reporting indicates several of Trump’s legal actions have been dismissed or faced substantial legal obstacles, producing a pattern of “lawsuits keeping falling flat” even as litigation remains expensive for defendants [4]. Press advocates point to the durability of First Amendment protections and precedents like New York Times v. Sullivan as legal shields, but available sources stress that lawsuits can do damage irrespective of final judgments [7] [4].
4. Broader industry responses — suing new technology firms
Separately, legacy publishers are turning litigation outward to confront technological threats: The New York Times and other publishers have sued AI companies such as Perplexity alleging copyright infringement as news aggregation and AI summarization grow — a strategy aimed at forcing licensing or compensation rather than stopping technological adoption outright [2]. Publishers describe lawsuits as leverage to shape commercial deals with AI companies and to preserve the economic model for original journalism [2].
5. Public policy moves that alter the media landscape
Beyond private lawsuits, executive actions and regulatory pressure are reshaping funding and access for outlets: a White House directive moved to end certain public funding to NPR and PBS and a change at the Pentagon altered press office allocations, moves critics say reflect political priorities and can reconfigure which outlets enjoy institutional access [8] [7]. Those shifts amplify the stakes of litigation by changing the institutional leverages that independent outlets traditionally relied upon [7] [8].
6. Competing viewpoints and hidden agendas
Proponents of the legal actions argue they’re remedies for alleged bias, factual error or censorship; opponents frame them as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP-like tactics) designed to punish and deter critical reporting [6] [5]. Some reporting notes an implicit political agenda: litigation and regulatory moves often align with broader efforts to reshape media markets and favor sympathetic outlets, suggesting motives beyond individual grievance [7] [3].
7. What reporting does not say — key unknowns
Available sources do not mention comprehensive statistics on how many independent and local outlets have settled versus fought in court, nor do they provide a full accounting of long-term newsroom resource impacts by outlet size (not found in current reporting). Detailed outcomes of all pending suits — including many against tech platforms and dozens consolidated in other litigation tracks — remain incompletely reported in these documents [4] [2].
8. Why this matters for democracy and journalism
Legal pressure, high-dollar settlements and regulatory moves shift power away from reporters and toward litigants and policymakers; even when claims are legally weak, the cost of defense and risk of settlement alter editorial decisions and access, a point made repeatedly by press-freedom advocates and watchdogs [5] [4]. The continuing strategy by publishers to sue AI firms shows media organizations are using the courts both defensively and offensively to preserve business models while critics warn about weaponizing litigation to suppress dissenting coverage [2] [5].