Gov. Newsom's Defamation Lawsuit Against Fox News Over "Gavin Lied About Trump's Call" Claim Can Go Forward

An excerpt from Delaware Superior Court Judge Sean Lugg’s 42-page opinion yesterday in Newsom v. Fox News Network, LLC:

In the midst of civil unrest in Los Angeles, California, Governor Gavin C. Newsom spoke on the telephone with President Donald Trump. The call took place after 10:00 p.m. on the night of Friday, June 6, 2025 (Pacific Daylight Time) (after 1:00 a.m. on Saturday, June 7, 2025 (Eastern Daylight Time)). The two did not speak again before President Trump, at a Tuesday, June 10, 2025, Oval Office press conference, was asked when he last spoke with Governor Newsom; President Trump responded that he and Governor Newsom spoke “[a] day ago.”

Soon thereafter, Governor Newsom posted on X that “[t]here was no call.” President Trump then provided Fox News Network (“FNN”) reporters a “phone log” evidencing the Friday night / Saturday morning call he had with Governor Newsom. On this information, FNN published—through nationally televised reporting overlaid by chyron—that “Gavin Lied About Trump’s Call.” …

The court allowed Newsom’s defamation case to go forward:

Delaware’s pleading standards at the motion to dismiss stage are minimal…. A complaint is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under [Delaware] Rule 12(b)(6) “[if] a plaintiff may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof under the complaint.” …

[1.] It is reasonably conceivable that FNN knew the statements were false at the time of making them.

FNN contends that the “‘gist’ or ‘sting’ of the suggestion that Newsom lied was substantially true,” because “[t]he word ‘lie’ certainly encompasses Newsom’s misleading tweet categorically denying he had a call with the President.” “Substantial truth,” FNN asserts, “turns on what Newsom actually said, not what he wishes he had said.”

Governor Newsom responds that “the central—indeed, the only—dispute between Newsom and Trump was when the two had last spoken.” According to Governor Newsom, this issue was so important that “reporters asked Trump when he has last spoken to Newsom.” Governor Newsom’s comment that he had no call with President Trump “[a] day ago” was not a lie as “[t]he timing of any call was not minor. It was the question.” …

The crux of FNN’s statements is that Governor Newsom was dishonest—lied—about not speaking with President Trump. [FNN host John] Roberts’ response on June 10, 2025, to Governor Newsom’s X post states that President Trump’s call logs, and President Trump himself, assert that the President spoke with Governor Newsom. Roberts’s response on X does not indicate when this conversation between Governor Newsom and President Trump occurred. [The host of another FNN show, Jesse Watters,] questioned why Governor Newsom would lie about speaking with the President. Watters’ statement does not indicate when this conversation between Governor Newsom and President Trump occurred. The issue at the heart of FNN’s statements was if Governor Newsom ever had a phone call conversation with President Trump, not when. And, FNN excluded pertinent context in casting this assertion of dishonesty.

It is reasonably conceivable, under the facts set forth in the complaint, that the “gist” or “sting” of FNN’s statements is that Governor Newsom lied about having ever talked with President Trump and, thus, FNN’s statements may reasonably be understood to be substantially untrue.

[2.] It is reasonably conceivable that Watters’ statement is not a protected opinion….

{FNN argues that its statements cannot be proven false because they are statements of opinion. Because falsity is a necessary element of defamation, “only statements alleging facts can properly be the subject of a defamation action.” Pure opinions are not actionable.

Opinions do not, however, enjoy blanket protection. “[W]here an expression of opinion implies a false assertion of fact, the opinion can constitute actionable defamation.” Whether a statement constitutes a statement of fact or opinion is a question of law. As such, this Court must determine whether the statements expressed in FNN’s broadcasts are actionable: “whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the published statement declares or implies a provably false assertion of fact.”}

[S]tating “in my opinion, this person is a liar,” “implies a knowledge of facts which lead to the conclusion that [a particular person] told an untruth.” “To decide whether a statement is fact or opinion, a court must put itself in the place of an average reader and determine the natural and probable effect of the statement, considering both the language and the context.” …

Watters, framed by the chyron “Gavin Lied about Trump’s Call,” stated:

Newsom responded, and he said there wasn’t a phone call. He said Trump never called him. Not even a voicemail, he said. But John Roberts got Trump’s call logs, and it shows Trump called him late Friday night and they talked for 16 minutes. Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?

On the record presently established, this statement implies knowledge of facts that could lead a person to believe Governor Newsom lied. FNN relied on President Trump’s phone call logs yet excluded President Trump’s temporal description of the call—”a day ago.”

The alleged facts do not support finding Watters’ rhetorical question to be a constitutionally protected opinion. FNN broadcast the statement on Fox News Channel. The statement was announced as a “Fox News Alert.” “[A] headline over a news story arguably implies a factual assertion.” It is reasonably conceivable that an average viewer could determine the statement to be one of fact, not opinion.

[3.] A finding of actual malice [i.e., that FNN knew the statement was false or likely false] is reasonably conceivable …

Governor Newsom alleges that FNN “deliberately presented a false picture” of the June 6/7 phone call “to fulfill their preconceived narrative” and that “Fox advanced this falsity about Governor Newsom out of a desire to harm him politically.” He contends that FNN harbors ill-will towards him and engages in a “pattern of employing preconceived false narratives to attack Governor Newsom.”

To support this claim, Governor Newsom cites to a segment aired on Jesse Watters Primetime, on June 20, 2025, in which Watters states Governor Newsom attended “a swanky wine tasting party as riots engulfed Los Angeles and mobs vandalized buildings.” While Governor Newsom asserts the June 20 comments about his attending a “swanky wine tasting party” are false, the Court understands their inclusion in the complaint to support his allegation of actual malice. This “misrepresentation,” Governor Newsom argues, represents “Fox’s perverse internal culture and slavish partisan mission … to purposely avoid the truth in service of a preconceived narrative.”

The Amended Complaint alleges facts which, when viewed in a light most favorable to Governor Newsom, evidence FNN published false information about Governor Newsom with knowledge of the statement’s falsity or with a reckless disregard for whether or not it was true. Thus, under the standard applicable here, the facts are reasonably susceptible to a finding of actual malice….

Michael J. Teter (Legal Accountability Center / Teter Legal), and Mark Bankston, Brian E. Farnan, and Michael J. Farnan (Farnan LLP) represents Newsom.

The post Gov. Newsom’s Defamation Lawsuit Against Fox News Over “Gavin Lied About Trump’s Call” Claim Can Go Forward appeared first on Reason.com.