- Federal Lawsuit: Four Utah plaintiffs have sued businessman and project backer Kevin O’Leary and Fox News over disputed China-linked accusations.
- Broadcast Claims: Plaintiffs allege the accusations appeared in 10 or more media appearances and caused reputational, financial and emotional harm.
- Corrections: Kevin O’Leary acknowledged he lacked evidence for the alleged ties, and Fox News apologized.
- Legal Response: Fox News said it would contest the suit; O’Leary’s attorney said he may pursue counterclaims.
Utah nonprofit Alliance for a Better Utah, political consulting firm Elevate Strategies, Joshua Kanter and Gabrielle Finlayson filed a federal defamation complaint against businessman and Stratos Project backer Kevin O’Leary and Fox News on July 15. The lawsuit concerns disputed accusations linking the four plaintiffs to China and the Chinese Communist Party.
Plaintiffs allege O’Leary repeated the accusations in 10 or more appearances, causing reputational, financial and emotional harm that later corrections did not undo. In their account, the national exposure continued to damage them after both defendants changed or corrected their positions.
On June 25, O’Leary acknowledged that he lacked evidence tying two Utah groups and several Utah residents to China or the Chinese Communist Party. Fox News apologized on June 26. No court has ruled that either defendant committed defamation, and no damages have been awarded.
Fox News host Maria Bartiromo delivered the network’s correction: “Fox News Media apologizes for the error.” She also relayed the network’s position that it was unaware of evidence supporting the accusations. Defamation is a civil claim over statements that plaintiffs contend are false and reputation-harming; filing a case begins that legal test rather than resolving it.
How the Data Center Fight Escalated
O’Leary’s proposed Stratos data center project is expected to occupy 40,000 acres in Box Elder County, Utah. At issue in the complaint is his May 11 suggestion that several project critics had ties to the Chinese government.
Plaintiffs estimate the planned facility would require more than twice Utah’s continuous electricity demand. They have not independently established that estimate as the project’s requirement, but it helps explain the intensity of local opposition. Both the footprint and projected power demand concern a proposed facility, not current land use or electricity consumption.
Across 10 or more media appearances, O’Leary portrayed the plaintiffs as Chinese agents engaged in criminal conduct, they allege. Plaintiffs also accuse Fox News of putting him on five programs within three weeks, affirming or endorsing his statements and failing to contact them first.
Neither allegation is a finding about the broadcasts or either defendant’s conduct. Plaintiffs contend that the exposure continued to affect their reputations, finances and emotional well-being after O’Leary’s response and the network apology. Their case must still establish falsity, legal responsibility and compensable loss.
Matthew Platkin, an attorney for the plaintiffs and former New Jersey attorney general, expresses their position on the alleged livelihood damage:
“No American should have to fear having their livelihood destroyed because a TV businessman falsely branded them a foreign agent on national television.”
Matthew Platkin, attorney for the plaintiffs and former New Jersey attorney general (via KSL.com)
The alleged livelihood damage remains the plaintiffs’ position, not an independent legal conclusion. A judge or jury must decide whether the broadcasts contained false, reputation-harming assertions and whether the plaintiffs proved compensable losses.
Why the Corrections Did Not End the Case
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, without specifying an amount. Compensatory damages would cover losses that they can prove. Punitive damages are an additional penalty available only if the plaintiffs prove misconduct and meet the applicable legal standard.
Jeffrey Neiman, an attorney for O’Leary, disputes the plaintiffs’ account and motives:
“Offered dialogue, they chose a courtroom — because this was never about reputation. It is a cash grab, and the second one: Within days of the statements at issue, the plaintiffs were fundraising off of them.”
Jeffrey Neiman, attorney for Kevin O’Leary (via KSL NewsRadio)
Neiman’s cash-grab and fundraising characterizations are defense assertions, not court findings. Neiman says O’Leary plans to defend the suit and may pursue counterclaims, meaning claims of his own against one or more plaintiffs. No counterclaim had been filed when the complaint became public.
Fox News said it corrected every affected program and would contest the lawsuit. O’Leary and Fox News must next answer the federal complaint, placing their responses to the allegations on the court record.
