Rupert Murdoch & Fox Corp’s Board Facing ANOTHER Major Court Case After Rampant Deception


Authorities in the state of Oregon and New York City have brought a sweeping lawsuit challenging the Fox Corporation board of directors in connection to the highly publicized propagation through Fox News after the 2020 presidential election of deception around what had transpired. The network hosted figures like Sidney Powell, whose disconnect from the facts on that election is now infamous.

The court case contends there were serious impacts threatened against investors by the course of action that Fox News took. Fox Corporation is a parent company for the network, and the higher-up firm includes on its board of directors Rupert Murdoch and his son, Lachlan. In Oregon, the state’s Public Employee Retirement Fund hinges in part on significant financial investments in Fox, and the pension funds in New York City are also tied to such investments.

A press release from the office of the Oregon attorney general didn’t specify the dollar amounts of any financial impacts seen with the investments held by the state and New York City authorities, though a massive lawsuit against Fox from Dominion Voting Systems already concluded with a settlement passing three-quarters of a billion dollars. Dominion was repeatedly — and baselessly — named in conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. Smartmatic, another company involved in technology for elections, was also named in such conspiracy theories and has also sued Fox, and their lawsuit remains active.

In short, the case against the Fox Corporation directors alleges a breach of fiduciary duty. “The board of Fox Corporation took a massive risk in pursuing profits by perpetuating and peddling known falsehoods,” Ellen Rosenblum, Oregon’s attorney general, said. “The directors’ choices exposed themselves and the company to liability and exposed their shareholders to significant risks. That is the crux of our lawsuit, and we look forward to making our case in court.” Those challenging Fox allege the companies failed to take substantial protective measures against the risks they were essentially embracing by broadcasting the deceptive election claims.