On a Tuesday in Florida, a federal judge decided that a dispute between a former president and a broadcaster will not yet be settled but will continue to be argued. The case, a $10bn claim over how a BBC documentary edited Donald Trump's words from the day of the Capitol riot, has been pared back to its central accusation, that a broadcast left viewers believing he had called for violence. The judge has let that accusation stand while declining to say whether it is true or whether any harm was done, leaving those questions for a later and more demanding stage of the process.
Judge Lets Trump's $10bn Defamation Suit Against BBC Proceed, Dismisses Florida Trade Claim
Whether Trump can prove these claims is "left for another day"
Mark
So what actually changed on Tuesday?
Mimi
The case got narrower but stayed alive. The defamation claim continues, and the Florida unfair trade practices claim is gone.
Mark
Why did the trade claim fail?
Mimi
Judge Kuntz ruled the documentary wasn't commercial speech, so that law didn't apply to it.
Luke
Before anyone reads this as a win for Trump, the judge didn't rule on the merits. He only found the allegations sufficient to continue. Proving them and showing damages comes later.
Mark
Trump called it a huge victory, though.
Luke
That's his characterisation, in a Truth Social post. The BBC said it was surprised but respects the court. Both are statements, not findings.
Mimi
The BBC also hasn't backed off. It apologised for the edit, saying it gave a mistaken impression of a direct call for violence, but it says it remains confident in its legal position.
Mark
And the argument that the programme wasn't available in the US?
Mimi
That was central to the BBC's dismissal request. Trump's lawyers conceded earlier this year they had no evidence it was on BritBox, the BBC website, BBC Select or US broadcasters.
Luke
What the source doesn't tell us is how the judge weighed that availability point in allowing the defamation claim to proceed. We only know the claim was found sufficient.
Mark
What's next?
Mimi
Trump has to answer questions under oath by 11 December, after he cancelled an earlier deposition.
Der Puls
- A $10bn defamation claim now moves forward after a federal judge in Florida refused to throw it out.
- A consumer-protection claim collapsed when the court ruled the Panorama documentary was not commercial speech.
- The BBC has apologised for a misleading edit, yet it is contesting the case and says it remains confident in its position.
- Trump's lawyers have already dropped claims about US availability and BBC Studios, and his sworn testimony is due by 11 December.
- Nothing on the merits has been decided, so the fight over proof and damages is only beginning.
On a Tuesday in Florida, a federal judge decided that a dispute between a former president and a broadcaster will not yet be settled but will continue to be argued. The case, a $10bn claim over how a BBC documentary edited Donald Trump's words from the day of the Capitol riot, has been pared back to its central accusation, that a broadcast left viewers believing he had called for violence. The judge has let that accusation stand while declining to say whether it is true or whether any harm was done, leaving those questions for a later and more demanding stage of the process.
On Tuesday a federal judge in Florida split Donald Trump's $10bn lawsuit against the BBC in two. The defamation claim goes ahead. A claim under Florida's consumer law was thrown out. The judge was careful to say he had reached no view on whether Trump could prove his case or show that he had been harmed.
The lawsuit centres on a Panorama episode that spliced together two separate parts of a speech Trump gave outside the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, shortly before the riot. Trump says the BBC deceptively doctored his words. The broadcaster has apologised, acknowledging that the programme gave the mistaken impression that he had directly called for violence.
The case has already narrowed. Trump's lawyers conceded they had no evidence the documentary was available in the US through the channels they had first named, and he agreed to drop BBC Studios from the action. A dispute over his own testimony is also pending: after cancelling a scheduled deposition, citing matters of national importance, he was ordered to answer questions under oath by 11 December.
Trump hailed the ruling as a huge victory. The BBC said it was surprised but respected the court's authority, and that it would keep defending its position through the proper process. What the court has settled so far is only that the claim may be heard. Whether it can be proven is still to be decided.
On Tuesday, a federal judge in Florida issued an order that split Donald Trump's $10bn (£7.5bn) lawsuit against the BBC in two. Judge Jeffrey Kuntz let the defamation claim go forward. He threw out the second claim, which rested on a Florida consumer law.
The suit concerns an episode of the BBC's Panorama programme. It edited together two separate sections of the speech Trump gave outside the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, before the riot there. Trump's complaint accuses the BBC of "intentionally, maliciously and deceptively doctoring" that speech. The BBC has apologised, saying the broadcast gave "the mistaken impression that Trump made a direct call for violent action."
After the BBC asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the programme did not meet the legal criteria for defamation and was not available in the US, Kuntz found Trump's defamation allegations sufficient to continue. He was careful about how far that goes. He made no ruling on the merits. "Whether President Trump can prove these claims and establish he sustained damages at summary judgment or trial is left for another day," he wrote.
The other claim did not survive. Trump had alleged that the BBC violated Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Kuntz ruled that the documentary was not commercial speech, which removed that part of the case.
Trump called the ruling a "huge victory" in a Truth Social post on Tuesday. A BBC spokesperson said the broadcaster was "surprised by this decision but respect the Court's authority," and noted that the case will now proceed to the next stage. The spokesperson added that the BBC remains confident in its position and will keep responding through the proper legal process.
The ruling follows a series of procedural episodes. Earlier this year, Trump's lawyers conceded they had no evidence that the documentary was available in the US on BritBox, as they had originally argued, or on the BBC's website, BBC Select or through US broadcasters. Trump also agreed to drop BBC Studios, the broadcaster's commercial arm, from the suit after the BBC argued it had no role in creating or producing the documentary.
There has also been a dispute over Trump's own testimony. Last month a judge ordered him to answer questions under oath by 11 December, after he cancelled a previously scheduled deposition, citing "matters of national importance." A lawyer for the BBC told the court that on the scheduled day in October Trump was campaigning in Georgia, and had "prioritised that" over answering their questions.
With the defamation claim intact, the next marker is that 11 December deadline for Trump's sworn answers. Whether he can prove the claims and show damages is what the court says remains to be decided, at summary judgment or trial.
Bemerkenswerte Zitate
Whether President Trump can prove these claims and establish he sustained damages at summary judgment or trial is left for another day.— Judge Jeffrey Kuntz, in Tuesday's order
We are surprised by this decision but respect the Court's authority and note the case will now proceed to the next stage.— BBC spokesperson
Möchten Sie die ganze Geschichte?
Das Original lesen bei BBC News ↗