Fox-Dominion Suit to Open With Big Stakes All Around

It looks like Dominion Voting System's massive defamation lawsuit against Fox News is going to trial after all. A one-day delay in the proceedings on Monday prompted speculation that a settlement was in the works, but the trial is now on track to begin Tuesday morning in a courtroom in Wilmington, Delaware. A look around:

• The case: Dominion has sued the network for $1.6 billion, alleging that its hosts knowingly spread false claims that the company's voting machines were rigged in Joe Biden's favor in 2020. The judge in the case already has ruled that the claims were false, per CNBC. Fox, however, says the allegations voiced by former President Trump and his supporters were newsworthy, and the network had an obligation to cover them. The New York Times has a primer on what both sides are arguing.

• Big names: Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Rupert Murdoch are among those on the witness list, though Mediaite reports they likely won't be seen or photographed entering and exiting court: A giant tent has been erected leading to the building, apparently as a way to shield witnesses from the public.
• The money: Even if Fox loses the case, the jury is unlikely to award Dominion the staggering sum of $1.6 billion, reports NBC News. A constitutional law professor says she has seen no evidence so far to justify that amount. “There’s a litigation strategy to ask for more than you think you can really get to anchor the number high,” says Lyrissa Lidsky. In the worst-case scenario for Fox, however, the network could likely cover the full amount and still survive. It had more than $4 billion in cash on its balance sheet at the end of last year, notes NBC.
• The stakes: The case "will have major implications for defamation law, the intersection of media and politics and the future of the country’s most-watched news network," per the Hill, which digs into all of the above. The New York Times has a similar analysis on why this is a "landmark test of the news media's First Amendment protections and culpability for spreading disinformation." Much hinges on whether the jury thinks the Fox hosts acted with "actual malice," meaning they intentionally spread false information or "disregarded obvious evidence that the statements were not true."
• Malice: The legal standard of actual malice in regard to defamation law is "notoriously difficult to prove, since it requires some insight into the mind-set of the people or organization that put out defamatory information," writes Clare Malone in the New Yorker in another primer/analysis. Dominion thinks it can do so after obtaining emails and texts of Fox hosts and execs. Fox, meanwhile, seems to be shifting strategy to focus on "mitigating its financial exposure in the case."

(More Fox News stories.)