Federal Judge Jeffrey T. Kuntz ruled on Tuesday that Donald Trump's lawsuit against the BBC can proceed. This partially denied the British broadcaster's motion to dismiss the case. The lawsuit, valued at $10 billion for defamation, is based on how the BBC edited Trump's statements made before the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January.
The disputed edit was shown in the Panorama documentary titled Trump: A Second Chance. Judge Kuntz, who was appointed to the bench by Trump himself and sits in a federal district court in Florida, stated that Trump had plausibly alleged harm. He asserted that the defamatory documentary, published ahead of the election, had caused reputational damage. He added that it would be difficult for the court to accept a different interpretation without completely diminishing the significance and sensitivity of political elections.
The judge highlighted that the edit combined Trump's statements which were separated in time by almost 55 minutes. The BBC has apologised for the edit. According to the judge, the edit itself can independently support the likelihood of malice at first glance. The BBC is attempting to present the edit as routine editing, reducing a 70-minute speech to 12 seconds, but the court did not accept this interpretation.
"In addition to the time difference between the two statements, it is precisely that distance that leads to a reasonable inference that the BBC knew or should have known that the segment they were creating could not and did not constitute a truthful statement," the judge noted. In his assessment, it was not a matter of trimming the edges, but of creating something that differed from what was said in the speech.
The judge also referred to the broadcaster's previous reporting errors. Such examples, he believes, can serve as evidence of the BBC's state of mind regarding negligence, given that the BBC did not treat false statements about Trump appropriately. Trump, the judge added, paints a picture showing that the BBC has a record of allowing the publication of false statements in its portrayal of Trump. His claims regarding the BBC's deviation from journalistic standards, the judge concluded, are more than sufficient to plausibly allege more than mere negligence.
In a statement, the BBC said it was surprised by the decision but respected the authority of the court and noted that the case would now proceed to the next phase. "We remain confident in our position and will continue to respond through the prescribed legal process," they said.
Trump celebrated the ruling on Truth Social, calling it a "massive victory." "We will continue to fight against all those who try to deceive the American people and defeat them!" he wrote.
The judge determined that Trump had plausibly alleged that the BBC acted with malice, the legal standard a public figure must meet to win a defamation suit, but he will have to prove this claim at trial. He also denied Trump's request that the BBC violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. He further determined that the president would have to prove that he suffered "actual harm" from the broadcast of the documentary, which was not shown in Florida.
