Donald Trump's $10B defamation lawsuit against BBC allowed to proceed
What's the story
A federal judge in Florida has allowed US President Donald Trump's $10 billion defamation case against the BBC to move forward. The decision comes after the British broadcaster tried to have the case dismissed. However, Judge Jeffrey Kuntz dismissed a second claim in the lawsuit under Florida's unfair trade practices law.
Case details
Lawsuit stems from BBC's documentary on riot
Trump's lawsuit stems from a Panorama documentary that spliced together two different parts of a speech he gave before the US Capitol riot back in January 2021.
The BBC has since apologized for the broadcast, saying it gave "the mistaken impression that Trump made a direct call for violent action."
Legal proceedings
BBC has defended itself in the ongoing legal battle
The BBC has defended itself by saying that the program doesn't meet the legal definition of defamation and wasn't available in the US.
Trump, however, has maintained his stance against the broadcaster.
A judge had previously ordered him to answer questions under oath in this lawsuit by December 11, after he canceled a deposition last month citing "matters of national importance."
Case progression
Judge yet to rule on merits of case
Judge Kuntz found Trump's defamation allegations against the BBC sufficient for the case to continue.
However, he did not rule on the merits of the case yet.
"Whether President Trump can prove these claims and establish he sustained damages at summary judgment or trial is left for another day," he wrote in Tuesday's order.
Damages acknowledged
'Hard to ignore reputational harm during election season'
Judge Kuntz acknowledged the potential reputational harm caused by the documentary's release, especially during an election season.
He said, "Accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, the Court finds Trump plausibly pled damages where Trump alleges a defamatory documentary released toward the election caused reputational harm."
The judge emphasized that it would be hard to ignore such an impact on political elections.
Editing concerns
Judge questioned BBC's editing of the documentary
Judge Kuntz also questioned the BBC's decision to edit the documentary, noting that it combined comments made by Trump nearly 55 minutes apart.
He said, "On its face, the editing may independently establish the plausibility of actual malice."
The judge rejected the BBC's argument that this was just ordinary editing done to condense a longer speech into a shorter one.
Recklessness suggested
'BBC has record of allowing the publication of false statements'
The judge also cited past errors in the BBC's coverage and said these examples could indicate recklessness on the part of the broadcaster.
He said, "Thus, Trump paints a picture that demonstrates the BBC has a record of allowing the publication of false statements in their portrayal of Trump."
The judge concluded Trump's allegations regarding BBC's departure from journalistic standards are more than enough to plausibly allege more than mere negligence.