Smartmatic v. Fox Lawsuit Update: Rulings, Discovery, and Damages

The Smartmatic v. Fox lawsuit remains in pretrial proceedings as of mid-2026, with no trial date on the calendar. Justice David B. Cohen of the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan has heard dueling summary judgment motions but has not ruled, and in May 2026 the Appellate Division vacated the Note of Issue — the procedural marker that a case is ready for trial — to allow limited additional discovery tied to a parallel federal criminal prosecution of Smartmatic executives.¹ The case still seeks $2.7 billion in damages.²

Why There Is No Trial Date Yet

Two things are keeping the case in pretrial. The first is the summary judgment stage. In December 2025, both sides argued dueling motions before Justice Cohen. Smartmatic asked the court, rather than a jury, to decide whether Fox acted with actual malice; Cohen called that request “a hard sell” from the bench.³ Fox, for its part, is asking the court to throw out the case or at least narrow damages. No ruling on those motions has been reported.

The second is the reopening of discovery. On May 2026, the Appellate Division vacated the Note of Issue so Fox could obtain additional materials about how the federal criminal case has affected Smartmatic’s business. The court held that the criminal charges would not be “decisive” of the defamation issues, but that their business impact is relevant to damages.¹

The Rulings That Shaped the Case

Several decisions by Justice Cohen and the appellate courts above him have set the boundaries of what Smartmatic can prove and what Fox can defend against.

The court refused to dismiss the defamation claims early on, finding that Smartmatic had sufficiently alleged Fox Corporation played an “affirmative role” in publishing the statements and “wholly dominated” Fox News, and that the complaint adequately pleaded actual malice.⁴

In January 2025, the Appellate Division narrowed the case against the parent company. It dismissed the defamation claim against Fox Corporation to the extent it rested on vicarious liability, while leaving intact claims based on the parent’s direct role.⁵

Fox’s Anti-SLAPP counterclaim, which argues that Smartmatic’s damages demand is itself an attempt to chill protected speech, survived a motion to dismiss because the court found triable issues of fact. But the court has repeatedly refused to let Fox use that counterclaim as a lever to expand discovery into unrelated allegations.⁴⁶

In November 2025, Justice Cohen denied Fox’s motion to pause the civil case while criminal charges against Smartmatic executives move forward in federal court. “I don’t find that there’s good cause for a stay. This would cause undue delay,” he said.⁷ The Appellate Division affirmed that denial in May 2026.¹

Discovery Fights Still in Play

The discovery phase has produced sanctions motions from both sides, and neither has been ruled on.

In May 2025, Smartmatic asked the court to sanction Fox for what it called the “extensive and willful” deletion of text messages from November and December 2020. The motion names Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch and seeks an adverse-inference instruction telling jurors they may assume the missing messages would have hurt Fox’s case.⁸

A week later, Fox filed its own spoliation motion. It alleges that Smartmatic founder Antonio Mugica told company president Roger Piñate Jr., in writing, to delete WhatsApp messages about damages issues days before the 2021 filing. Fox is asking the court to declare that Smartmatic intentionally destroyed evidence, strike all lost-profits claims after 2022, and cap damages.⁹ Fox called Smartmatic’s allegations “stale, baseless discovery issues” already “resolved two years ago.”¹⁰

Separately, on May 13, 2025, a New York appeals court ruled that Fox is entitled to Smartmatic’s internal documents about the impact of the federal indictment on its business and any communications with customers about the charges, calling those materials “plainly relevant” to damages.¹¹ The Appellate Division clarified in May 2026 that this discovery is limited to business impact and does not extend to whether the bribery allegations are true.¹

The Federal Criminal Case Hanging Over the Civil Suit

A parallel federal prosecution is now driving much of what happens in the Fox case. In 2024, the Department of Justice charged three current and former Smartmatic executives with Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations, alleging roughly $1 million in bribes to secure a contract related to the 2016 Philippine election. In October 2025, a superseding indictment added the UK-based parent company, SGO, as a defendant.¹²

On March 10, 2026, Smartmatic filed a motion in the Southern District of Florida to dismiss the criminal charges as “vindictive and selective,” arguing the indictment is part of what it called President Trump’s “campaign of retribution against his perceived enemies.”¹³ The company also says settlement talks were shut down by a newly appointed U.S. attorney shortly before the superseding indictment.¹² That motion is also pending.

The criminal case matters to the Fox lawsuit in two ways. Fox is using the charges to argue that Smartmatic’s reputational damage stems from its own alleged misconduct rather than anything broadcast on Fox News.¹¹ And Fox is arguing that the August 2024 indictment should serve as a cutoff date for any general damages, on the theory that harm after that point flows from the criminal case, not from Fox’s coverage.¹⁴

One personnel note connects the two proceedings. Jeanine Pirro, one of the original defendants named in Smartmatic’s 2021 complaint, was confirmed in August 2025 as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.¹⁵ There is no public reporting that she has recused herself from matters involving Smartmatic.

The Damages Fight

Smartmatic values the harm to the company and its subsidiaries at not less than $2.7 billion, with an additional $500 million to $690 million in projected lost profits over the five years ending December 2025.² Fox has called the case a “meritless cash grab” by a “failing company” and described the $2.7 billion figure as a “litigation lottery ticket.”¹⁶

In its August 2025 summary judgment motion, Fox argued the international lost-profits projections rest on “a dramatic and unrealistic reversal of historically poor international performance.” Fox also asked the court to dismiss punitive damages, saying no reasonable jury could find the network acted “solely by animus toward Smartmatic.”¹⁴

For scale, Fox agreed in April 2023 to pay $787.5 million to settle a similar defamation suit brought by Dominion Voting Systems, acknowledging “the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false.”¹⁶ Smartmatic’s attorney Erik Connolly has told the court that Fox’s exposure here is “much more” than that. Lachlan Murdoch has said Fox expects to fare better against Smartmatic than it did against Dominion.¹⁷

How Fox Is Defending the Case

Fox’s core defense is that its hosts were “fairly and accurately” reporting “remarkable and newsworthy allegations” made by a sitting president and his legal team between Election Day and certification, without actual malice.¹⁶ Layered on top of that are the Anti-SLAPP counterclaim, the argument that Smartmatic’s own alleged misconduct explains any reputational damage, and the push to cap damages at the date of the federal indictment.

What to Watch Next

Three rulings will drive whatever happens in the coming months. Justice Cohen’s decision on the dueling summary judgment motions will determine whether the case heads to a jury, is narrowed, or is thrown out. Rulings on the two spoliation motions could reshape what evidence and what damages a jury ever sees. And the federal court’s decision on Smartmatic’s vindictive-prosecution motion in Florida will affect both the criminal case and Fox’s damages arguments in New York. Until those come down, and until the reopened discovery closes, no trial date will be set.

1
New York Courts. Smartmatic USA Corp. v Fox Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 02891
2
New York Courts. Smartmatic USA Corp. v Fox Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 30732
3
New York Law Journal. A Hard Sell: Voting Machine Co. Says Judge, Not Jury, Should Decide Key Issue in Fox News Defamation Case
4
AFS Law. Big Lie Continues to Plague Fox Corporation: Smartmatic Defamation Case
5
Leagle. Smartmatic USA Corp. v Fox Corp., 234 A.D.3d 505
6
Courthouse News. Smartmatic Opposition to Fox Stay Motion
7
Courthouse News. Fox Loses Bid to Pause Smartmatic Defamation Case
8
CNN. Smartmatic Accuses Fox News, Rupert Murdoch of Destroying Evidence
9
Washington Examiner. Fox News Seeks Sanctions Against Smartmatic Deleted Evidence
10
ABC News. Smartmatic Alleges Fox News Destroyed Text Messages
11
CNN. Fox News Smartmatic Appeals Court Documents
12
Bloomberg Law. Smartmatic Accuses Trump DOJ of Vindictive Bribery Prosecution
13
The New York Times. Smartmatic Trump Indictment Vindictive Prosecution
14
Deadline. Defendants Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
15
Houston Public Media. Senate Confirms Ex-Fox News Host Pirro as Top Federal Prosecutor for Nations Capital
16
ABC News. Fox News, Smartmatic File Dueling Motions for Summary Judgment
17
CapRadio. Smartmatic Defamation Lawsuit Against Fox News