Why Donald Trump’s $10bn lawsuit against the BBC is doomed to fail
Donald Trump’s case against the BBC has a “fundamental flaw” and will need to be cleared through a series of legal hurdles to succeed in the US, according to a leading media lawyer.
The US president filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the broadcaster over the editing of a broadcast. Panorama The documentary comes a week before the 2024 US elections, which its lawyers claim is “false and defamatory”.
They also claimed that “the BBC has deliberately and maliciously attempted to completely mislead its viewers worldwide”. The BBC said in a statement that it would defend the case.
The program is accused of misleading viewers by editing a speech Trump gave on January 6, 2021.
The broadcaster included two different clips from Trump’s speech that day, creating the impression that he was instructing the crowd: “We’re going to march to the Capitol… and I’ll be there with you. And we’re fighting. We’re fighting like crazy.”
The controversy arose for the first time Telegram Last month it led to a full-blown crisis at the corporation and the resignations of BBC chief executive Tim Davie and BBC News chief executive Deborah Turness.
The BBC said in documents submitted by Trump’s lawyers to a federal court in Miami late on Monday, $5bn (£3.7bn) was sought in damages for defamation and the same amount was sought for alleged breaches of business practices, for a total of $10bn.
A BBC spokesman said: “As we have previously stated, we will defend this case. We will not be commenting further on ongoing legal proceedings.”
Mark Stephens, an international media lawyer with the London-based firm Howard Kennedy, believes there are aspects of the claim that the president will have difficulty proving.
‘Judiciary is the magic element here’
President Trump cannot sue BBC in British court for missing deadline; The statute of limitations for defamation claims in the UK is one year.
The suit was filed in a court in Florida, but Mr. Stephens believes that poses the “fundamental flaw” of the president’s case: jurisdiction.
he said Independent: “His lawyers missed the UK deadline by two weeks, so he has to find somewhere else published – which is why they spend the first few pages of the case talking about jurisdiction.
“They say American courts have jurisdiction if people are from these areas. President Trump lives in Florida, so he can sue.”
“The problem is they couldn’t decide whether the defamation happened in Florida and couldn’t prove it.”
The Florida court does not have jurisdiction to hear a claim involving material not published in the United States. Trump must prove that people in Florida may have viewed this video. Panorama section.
Mr. Stephens explained: “Jurisdiction is the magic element here. President Trump and his lawyers Panorama The program was first broadcast in the US, ideally in Florida, secondly, someone saw it, and thirdly, those who watched it would think worse of it for having watched it.
“They’re trying to resolve this issue. They say people on Britbox (streaming platform) in Florida can watch the video, and anyone in Florida using a VPN (because it’s geo-blocked by the US) can watch it.”
He added: “What is notable in the absence of the 87-page lawsuit is that there is any evidence that this lawsuit was published by anyone and that anyone who watched it thought less of Donald Trump.
“This is a burden that plaintiff Donald Trump and his lawyers have yet to discharge.”
‘The absence of true evil’
Defamation law in the US differs from that in the UK in that the burden falls on the plaintiff rather than the defendant. The plaintiff must prove that the claim is false, is defamatory, and was published or published.
Mr. Stephens believes this creates more hurdles for the president.
He said: “Secondly [flaw] in fact, it is the absence of real evil. To prove this, President Trump’s lawyers need to show that the BBC acted with knowledge of the truth, deliberately averted its eyes from it, and deliberately lied.
“I don’t think that’s a conceivable element. As far as I can see, they haven’t lightened the burden of that in the complaint.”
“The President is a public figure and he needs to show (evidence) of actual malice, so the BBC knew it was wrong and didn’t care.
“Practically speaking, you are looking for very specific evidence of provable, material harm and evidence that the BBC knew it was wrong or did not care whether it was wrong.
“None of these are included in the claim, and these are the key elements his lawyers must prove in a successful claim.”
The BBC is committed to fighting the case. As filed, the document will next be presented to the BBC, but Mr Stephens believes parts of the company could be scrapped to save legal costs.
He said: “If it’s canceled before the trial, I think [litigation] It will cost the BBC around $200,000.
“If it goes to court it will cost $1 million, maybe a little more. I’ve seen estimates that say it’s around ten million, but that’s nonsense; the evidence is pretty simple.”
