28 ms·
Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims
- alistairSH 1y ago~1/3 of their annual revenue. Not nothing, but likely small enough that it’s just a cost of doing business and not a real deterrent. IMO.
- kristjansson 1y agoAgree that it should be more, but what sort of margins do you realize that 1/3 of _revenue_ seems small?
- alistairSH 1y ago“Small enough” not “small”. Likely not enough to force a major change in the “morals” of the company.
- whoiskevin 1y agoI'd like to see something that takes 50% of their revenue for 5 to 10 years.
- nemomarx 1y agoWell it is only one year of revenue for an action they did across multiple years.
- bradleybuda 1y agoThis kind of comment comes up a lot On The Internet and it tells me that the commenter has never worked at a company that has lost a massive lawsuit. As someone who has worked at one of those companies, I can tell you that losing a suit like this will absolutely lead to huge operational changes to avoid it happening again. Whether or not those changes actually change the "character" of the company is a different question (IMHO Newsmax is morally defunct and cannot be saved) but no company anywhere would just shrug something like this off as "the cost of doing business".
- felixgallo 1y agoThis would be true if the source of funding were the standard kind of corporate funding. But there’s reason to believe that the backing money behind this corporation does not care in the slightest and regards this sort of poultry fine as merely the cost of doing its particular business, which is also not a standard type of corporate business.
- alistairSH 1y agoYeah, that’s fair. Settlements like this should include a complete change out of executive teams and BoD. Or something to try and fix the moral bankruptcy.
- notatoad 1y agoi think it's unclear whether newsmax is a "real" company or not. is there any indication that they're trying to make money, or are they trying to push their agenda? because they pretty clearly do have an agenda to push. if they're a real company designed to make a profit, then sure, 1/3 of their annual revenue is plenty of incentive to make a real change, and could even be a company-ending event. If they're just a rich person's tool to influence public opinion, then whether or not $67m is a big enough number to make a dent depends on the pockets of their funders, not on the company's finances.
- bradleybuda 1y agoIt's a publicly-traded company (and was private for 16 years prior to going public) so it seems likely that actually making money is at least somewhere on their list of priorities...
- ac29 1y agoThey've never turned a profit though, so this only adds to their financial problems.
- gkoberger 1y agoI imagine they likely have insurance for things like this. Or at least I would, if my business model was largely based on libel.
- evan_ 1y agoWho would underwrite that?
- benjiro 1y agoAnnual revenue is not profit. This is the money earned without all the costs of running the business. For instance, the total revenue was 171m in 2024. But the cost of revenue was 86m. Then you need to remove the operation expenses, that are 153m. So in 2024, the before taxes net income was a loss of 69 million. In 2025 they are currently at -30m because it seems they cut in their Operating Expense. Explains some of the anchors leaving in 2024 (the impact of big cuts are often only felt the next year) Here is a very important titbit: > Newsmax and Newsmax Broadcasting LLC agreed to pay Dominion and its affiliates over three installments, starting with $27 million that was paid on Friday. Newsmax will pay $20 million on January 15 and another $20 million on January 15, 2027. In other words, they are not able to pay out the 67m in 2025, and are paying it off over 3 years. Given the negative income it has, combined with the now extra payments for then next 3 years... They are going to be cutting even more staff, what will affect their ability to generate revenue. It may look like a good deal, only 1/3 of their revenue, a 3 year payment plan. But its more of a survival plan. Why did Dominion accept this? Because its guaranteed money. Dominion is not out to destroy newsmax, no, Dominion wants cheese and a dead newsmax means no cheese. But the effect will be hard on the newsmax, do not underestimate this. Let alone internally... Some people will see this as a newsmax win, because most people do not know the difference between revenue. And why payment plans are not good indicator. But in reality, the company was already on a bankruptcy route, and its not going to get better. So unless somebody Musk steps in with major $$$ to buyout and finance them for a long time, ...
- phonon 1y agoWell, Newsmax raised about $400 million this year in stock sales, so they can easily afford it.
- UmGuys 1y agoThey don't need to profit. They're funded by MAGAs to kill truth.
- stefantalpalaru 1y ago[dead]
- whatsupdog 1y agoUnpopular opinion: Paper ballots with in person voting (with an ID) is the only 100% fool proof and verifiable voting system. Everything else could be manipulated or hacked. And when there's trillions of dollars and world power on the line, it's just a matter of time when the "could be" turns to "would be".
- lawlessone 1y agoI wouldn't say it's 100% fool proof, but paper does require a lot more people to be "In" on it.
- alistairSH 1y agoPaper ballots can be faked. Or lost. Or stuffed. Anyways, haven’t most/all districts gone to paper ballots, the electronic part is just auto tabulation. They can be counted manually if necessary.
- jeltz 1y agoWhat is the point then? Why introduce a machine where none is needed. In most countries all votes are counted twice by his d and the initial voubt finishes in a few hours.
- bediger4000 1y agoThey're faster.
- normalaccess 1y agoAre they? we used to have same day numbers... Now elections can take weeks to figure out who won. Progress in the negative direction.
- bediger4000 1y agoCan you point to a solid reference that national elections had same day numbers and the years of those election s?
- siliconc0w 1y agoIt's pretty sad that is these sort of ticky-tacky lawsuits are really the only mechanism we seem have of holding these "news" networks responsible for brazen repeated lies that are hugely damaging to our society (like saying a election was stolen). And that wasn't even the problem, it's that their lies created damages for another corporation.
- tyre 1y agoRelated: “I find all of this so weird because of how it _elevates_ finance. [Various cases] imply that we are not entitled to be protected from pollution as _citizens_, or as _humans_. [Another] implies that we are not entitled to be told the truth _as citizens_. (Which: is true!) Rather, in each case, we are only entitled to be protected from lies _as shareholders_. The great harm of pollution, or of political dishonesty, is that it might lower the share prices of the companies we own.” — Matt Levine Here he is talking about shareholder lawsuits (securities fraud) being the primary mechanism of holding social responsibility.
- LurkerAtTheGate 1y agoI was thinking this opens them up to a shareholder suit for mismanagement, breach of duty, or possibly even fraud?
- nickff 1y agoMatt Levine often repeats the phrase ‘everything is securities fraud’. Any statement which turns out (with hindsight) to be false is grounds for a shareholder class-action lawsuit. Even many correct statements are grounds for shareholder class actions. The problem is that the only people who actually profit from shareholder class actions are the lawyers.
- throw0101a 1y ago> Matt Levine I was curios for the exact source, and the link is: * https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-03-31/senator-doesn-t-like-companies-lying-to-government https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-03-31/senato... * https://archive.is/9WcxD https://archive.is/9WcxD He referenced / quoted it recently: * https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2025-04-01/is-doge-securities-fraud https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2025-04-01/is-... * https://archive.is/B7yvw https://archive.is/B7yvw
- Cadwhisker 1y agoThat fine needs an extra zero on the end. They'll shrug it off as the cost of doing business.
- oa9295401 1y ago[dead]