What is the current status of the Smartmatic’s lawsuits?
Fox: Smartmatic’s lawsuit against Fox News, Fox Corporation, Fox hosts, Giuliani, and Powell is active in New York State Supreme Court and is awaiting a ruling on cross motions for summary judgment. In January 2025, a New York appeals court rejected Fox Corporation’s motion to dismiss, ruling that Fox Corporation would remain a Defendant in the case.
Lindell: Separately, in September 2025, a federal judge in Minnesota granted Smartmatic partial summary judgment against Mike Lindell and MyPillow, ruling that numerous statements accusing Smartmatic of rigging the 2020 election were false and defamatory, and that it would have been impossible for Smartmatic to have altered election results in Los Angeles or elsewhere.
Newsmax: Smartmatic previously settled its defamation lawsuit against Newsmax in September 2024. The settlement terms are confidential. In connection with the case, Newsmax publicly acknowledged that the court had found that Newsmax’s statements about Smartmatic rigging the 2020 election results were “factually false and untrue.” See Newsmax’s official statement here.
What are some results already from Smartmatic lawsuits?
Several significant legal outcomes have already validated Smartmatic’s position.
In September 2024, the Superior Court of Delaware partially granted Smartmatic’s motion for summary judgment in the Newsmax action and found that “statements regarding Smartmatic software or voting machines altering the results of the Election are factually false. The reports and investigations conducted by multiple state and federal agencies since the Election universally come to the same result.”
Newsmax later settled Smartmatic’s defamation lawsuit days before the case was scheduled to go to trial. Newsmax’s own attorney had described the litigation as “a bet-your-company case.” In its statement,, Newsmax acknowledged that the court had found its statements accusing Smartmatic of rigging the 2020 U.S. election were factually false and untrue. Evidence gathered during discovery confirmed that Smartmatic provided technology exclusively to Los Angeles County in 2020 and that Newsmax had no evidence to support its on-air claims.
In January 2025, a New York appeals court denied Fox Corporation’s motion to dismiss, ruling that Fox Corporation would remain a Defendant in this case.
In September 2025, a Minnesota federal court granted Smartmatic partial summary judgment against Mike Lindell and MyPillow, ruling that statements made about Smartmatic rigging the 2020 election were false and defamatory as a matter of law.
Today, no court, audit, or investigation has found any evidence that Smartmatic rigged the 2020 U.S. election. The litigation record has repeatedly confirmed the opposite: statements made about Smartmatic rigging the 2020 U.S. election were false.
Why has Smartmatic been the target of false claims?
Election technology companies have long been targets of losing candidates and political parties seeking to explain away defeat. Before 2020, Smartmatic was occasionally named in post-election disputes, as were other providers, typically by opposition groups unwilling to accept results. This is a pattern as old as contested elections themselves: when a candidate loses, the technology or the commission often becomes a convenient target. These disputes were local, were addressed through legal and institutional channels, and did not define the company’s public profile.
That changed overnight in November 2020. Following the U.S. presidential election, Fox News, Newsmax, and other outlets broadcasted statements falsely alleging that Smartmatic’s technology had been used to steal the U.S. election. The scale and reach of those broadcasts were unlike anything the company had experienced. Within days, Smartmatic became the subject of a global disinformation campaign, despite having provided technology exclusively to Los Angeles County in that election, using a system that does not count, tabulate, or store votes.
Those statements have been repeatedly disproven as false in courts, and the outlets that made them have faced significant legal consequences.