Background
In June 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom spoke with President Donald Trump by telephone late on a Friday night during civil unrest in Los Angeles. Several days later, President Trump told reporters he had spoken to Newsom “a day ago.” Governor Newsom posted on X (formerly Twitter) that “there was no call,” apparently disputing the timing of the conversation rather than its existence. President Trump then provided Fox News host John Roberts a phone log showing the Friday night call, and Fox News aired a segment in which host Jesse Watters questioned why Newsom would “lie and claim Trump never called him,” accompanied by a chyron reading “Gavin Lied About Trump’s Call.” Critically, Watters’ broadcast used an edited clip that omitted Trump’s statement that the call happened “a day ago” — the very temporal qualifier that was at the heart of the dispute.
Governor Newsom sued Fox News Network (“FNN”) for defamation in Delaware, where FNN is incorporated. FNN moved to dismiss the amended complaint on three grounds: forum non conveniens (arguing the case belongs in California or New York, not Delaware), failure to state a claim for defamation, and entitlement to attorneys’ fees under California’s anti-SLAPP statute after Newsom voluntarily withdrew a California Unfair Competition Law claim.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Lugg denied all of FNN’s motions. On forum non conveniens, the court applied Delaware’s “Cryo-Maid” factors and found that FNN failed to show the “overwhelming hardship” required for dismissal. The court noted that FNN chose Delaware as its corporate home, no single forum was more convenient for all parties and witnesses, modern technology mitigates travel burdens, and no similar action was pending elsewhere — all weighing against dismissal.
On the defamation claim, the court applied California substantive law (as the law of the state with the most significant relationship) and Delaware procedural law. Applying Delaware’s liberal “conceivability” standard at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court found it reasonably conceivable that: (1) FNN’s statements were substantially untrue because the “gist” or “sting” of the broadcast was that Newsom lied about ever speaking with Trump, not merely about the call’s timing; (2) Watters’ statements were not constitutionally protected opinion, particularly given the “Fox News Alert” chyron declaring as fact that “Gavin Lied”; and (3) actual malice could be inferred from, among other things, FNN’s deliberate editing of the video clip to remove Trump’s temporal qualifier and FNN’s alleged pattern of false narratives targeting Newsom. The court also rejected FNN’s arguments that California’s retraction statute barred the claim, finding the retraction demand was timely and that whether Watters’ subsequent on-air statement constituted a “full and complete” retraction was a question for the factfinder.
Finally, the court declined to award attorneys’ fees under California’s or New York’s anti-SLAPP statutes, holding that those statutes are procedural in nature and Delaware procedural law controls.
Key Takeaways
- Delaware remains a viable forum for defamation suits against media companies incorporated there. FNN’s choice to incorporate in Delaware significantly undercut its forum non conveniens argument, even though neither the plaintiff nor the underlying events had any connection to the state.
- Editing source material in a way that removes key context can support allegations of actual malice. The court emphasized that FNN excluded Trump’s temporal qualifier (“a day ago”) when framing Newsom as a liar, which could show knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.
- Framing statements as rhetorical questions or on opinion shows does not automatically shield them as protected opinion, especially when accompanied by chyrons and “news alert” framing that present the underlying assertion as fact.
Why It Matters
This decision is a significant early-stage win for a public official bringing a defamation claim against a major news network — a notoriously difficult undertaking given the actual malice standard set by New York Times v. Sullivan. The court’s reasoning closely tracks the analytical framework from the landmark Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News case, also decided in Delaware Superior Court, particularly regarding circumstantial evidence of actual malice such as departure from journalistic standards and preconceived false narratives.
For media companies, the ruling underscores the litigation risk of selective editing. The court found that deliberately omitting context that contradicts the thrust of a broadcast can itself serve as evidence of actual malice. For in-house counsel at media organizations, this is a reminder that editorial choices — particularly what is left out of a story — can become central evidence in defamation litigation. The case now proceeds to discovery, where internal communications at Fox News will likely come under close scrutiny.