Justice the American way . The rich get to just buy their way out of trial

[Fullduplexxx]

[inthewind21]

1. This is not new

It's how it's worked for the entire time the judicial system has been out there.

[blueinredohio]

18. This!!

[Irish_Dem]

2. Fox works to destroy the US and just pays a fine.

Figures.

[Ocelot II]

6. Almost $800 million is not pocket change.

It was enough to make Dominion whole, which was the whole point of the lawsuit. Incidentally, Fox's lies were exposed to the public, which was an excellent side-effect. But it was never the purpose.

[hatrack]

15. Rupert Murdoch's personal wealth in 2022 was $21.7 billion . . . .

It's 3.6 cents off a dollar for him. It's not even pocket change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch

[Ocelot II]

19. But that's not the point. The point was how much money Dominion needed

to be fully compensated for the harm to its business. It doesn't matter how rich a defendant might be; it matters how much harm the plaintiff has suffered. If Bill Gates ran over me with his car and broke my leg, I wouldn't be entitled to 3.7% of his net worth of $110B; I'd be entitled to enough money to pay my medical bills, loss of income, and other incidental damages. Or if I owned a coffee shop across the street from a Starbucks and Starbucks disparaged my coffee shop, causing me to lose customers and $50,000 in income, I could recover $50,000 to compensate me for my lost business, not 3.7% of Starbuck's net worth of $121.37B. The purpose of a civil lawsuit is to compel the defendant to pay the injured plaintiff an amount sufficient to compensate them for the harm the defendant caused. Sometimes punitive damages can be awarded, but in many states the amount is capped or can be reduced on appeal, because even those damages are not intended to ruin the defendant, just to deter them from future mischief.

[hatrack]

24. Sure, Fox is a full-blown, metastatic cancer, but let's just apply the Green Poultice . . . .

'Cuz 'Murca and money and market forces, and shareholder value, and after all, isn't everything just dollars and cents?!!??

That's the legal precedent, and I"m sure that'll fix it!!

[Ocelot II]

25. What do you think should be done?

[SYFROYH]

26. What about punitive damages?

[Ocelot II]

27. Punitive damages are a long shot, always.

A jury can award them but doesn't have to, and they are often reduced on appeal. Some states even have a maximum limit (not sure if DE does). Since proof of actual malice would have been necessary to impose any liability for media defamation in the first place, it wouldn't have been that "extra" element that in other kinds of torts would be necessary to support an award of punitive damages; it was already implicitly figured into the compensatory damages settlement.

[BumRushDaShow]

28. To perhaps help you narrow this -

I had heard earlier and confirmed in the actual suit, that although this trial was to take place in DE (because both Dominion LLC and the Faux LLC are registered in that "no tax" state), they were going to use NY tort law for the prosecution - https://casetext.com/case/us-dominion-inc-v-fox-news-network-llc-1/

A. The parties

Plaintiff U.S. Dominion, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Colorado. Plaintiff Dominion Voting Systems, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Colorado. Plaintiff Dominion Voting Systems Corporation is an Ontario corporation with its principal place of business in Ontario. Dominion Voting Systems, Inc. and Dominion Voting Systems Corporation are wholly owned subsidiaries of U.S. Dominion, Inc.

Compl. ¶ 8.

Id. ¶ 9.

Id. ¶ 10.

Id. ¶¶ 9, 10.

Defendant Fox is a Delaware LLC with its principal place of business in New York. Fox operates the Fox news Channel, the Fox Business Channel, Fox News Radio, and Fox News Digital, which it refers to collectively as "Fox News Media."

and

The Court entered an order holding that New York tort law applied on April 27, 2021.

Apparently there was some discussion which laws to use for what and I *think* for "procedural" things, they used DE law but for the meat of the case, they reference NY law.

[allegorical oracle]

29. Agree that the $$ issue was settled. But Fox's lies were exposed only to people who watched

and read mostly non-conservative sources. Fox has not informed its viewers that its hosts steadily misled them for years. What's more, there's no evidence, now, that Fox will ever inform their viewers of their deliberate lies. The only way Fox addicts will believe the truth about the "big lie" will be if it comes straight from the mouths of Carlson or Hannity. Now that won't happen.

[inthewind21]

10. They

Settled a lawsuit. Which is an option for every single civil suit ever filed. No fine involved.

[Bettie]

3. Yep, that's our system

and people tell me it's doom and gloom to think other rich assholes will get away with everything.

[Ocelot II]

4. That's what commercial litigation is for. Dominion's business was harmed

by Fox's falsehoods about its products, so they sued to recover damages and be made whole. "Buying your way out of trial," also known as settling the case, is what happens in about 90% of all commercial cases. The whole purpose of the lawsuit was not to satisfy the public's desire to punish Fox but to ensure that Dominion would be compensated for the harm done to its business, and by settling for an amount Dominion considered adequate they could be sure that they would be compensated immediately, not have to risk the uncertain results of a jury trial, or wait years and years for the outcome of the inevitable appeals. Except for the fact that the defendant was a major media outlet that told a lot of lies on the air, this case would have been just another of the thousands of cases that are filed and settled every year. "Buying your way out of trial" is the result most parties aim for.

[yaesu]

5. In a capitalist society money talks, everything else walks. nt

[Ocelot II]

7. It was a private lawsuit brought by private corporate litigants.

How else do you think Dominion could have been compensated for its business losses?

[RussBLib]

17. Welcome to DU!

[BlueCheeseAgain]

9. Civil cases are always about money.

That's what the plaintiffs ask for, and if the defendant is willing to pony up, then the case gets settled.

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

11. Ayep, no public apology, no on air personalities will have to say they lied

Cash machine just go brrrrrrrrrrrr, paid off

[Effete Snob]

13. You can't get that in a trial either

[Ocelot II]

21. It's doubtful a court could require an apology if a party doesn't want to do it.

"Paying off" is exactly what a settlement in a civil case is, and most civil cases settle before trial. Most parties want that to happen because jury trials are a crapshoot. When you tell your opponent you're going to trial, what you are really doing is playing chicken, hoping they'll blink first and offer a decent settlement. The defendant hopes the buyoff will work because they don't want the risk that a jury will award a lot more. The plaintiff wants a settlement because they don't want the risk that they'll lose, or that if they win they'll be stuck having to fight off appeals for a year. This is what happens in maybe 90% of all civil cases.

[allegorical oracle]

30. Respectfully disagree. A retraction/correction/ absolutely could've been required. I've

worked for three media outlets. At every one, even inadvertent errors required a public correction be made. It was standard policy. That's why Fox's case is so outrageous: Their "errors" were purposeful lies that they made no effort to correct.

The "Bible" for the majority of news providers -- print and broadcast -- is the Associated Press Stylebook. Its standard requires a "corrective" be issued when fact errors occur. It is a timely, straightforward notice of what the error was and includes the correct information. It does not require an apology, but some outlets opt to mention they "regret" the error. That's why Fox is not considered by most news professionals to be a legitimate medium.

[Effete Snob]

12. What the fuck is it that people think civil trials are ABOUT?

You think if someone damages you to the tune of $X and they offer you $X, then you are going to be able to say "Oh, no, I want to get a verdict two years from now and then another year of appellate proceedings before I get that money!"

Seriously, what the fuck do people here think civil trials are FOR?

[BlueCheeseAgain]

16. This is enough of a misconception that you may want to write your own post

explaining the difference between civil and criminal cases and trials.

[Ocelot II]

23. This is what's driving me nuts. This case wasn't about satisfying some public desire

to kick Fox's ass, though God knows they deserve it; it was all about Dominion wanting compensation for the harm Fox's false statements caused to its business. Of course it was about money, and of course they took the settlement because it's what they wanted. In the course of discovery they uncovered the extent of Fox's perfidy, and they needed that information to overcome the actual malice requirement, which made the settlement possible. That all of this was made public is excellent, and it will be ammunition for additional litigation. But yes indeed, Dominion did it for the money.

[ripcord]

14. Mountain meet molehill

[NotVeryImportant]

20. The good news is that we'll never hear any more Dominion bashing on FOXNEWS

And it scared the other hatewing outlets out of their pants, so they've already shutup about it too.

I will take my pleasure from knowing that Dominion has put the fear of God in these sons of bitches.