A three-judge panel on an appeals court in Connecticut has upheld the issuance of $75,000 in fines on far-right media figure Alex Jones in connection to him initially missing a deposition amid litigation on his lies about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012. Jones has been widely held responsible for helping propagate the conspiracy theory that the shooting, as reported, was a hoax, which has never been substantiated by a single piece of evidence.
Jones was sued across multiple cases by individuals connected to the tragedy, largely family members of victims, and he is now separately subject to massive judgments demanding a nearly $1.5 billion payout in one case alone — though that’s somewhat in limbo amid bankruptcy proceedings for Jones and a key company of his. The Connecticut court that ruled in relation to the deposition he initially missed pointed to Jones having continued broadcasting while claiming that the state of his health was then preventing him from showing up for questioning.
“We agree with the trial court that the undisputed fact that the defendant chose to host a live radio broadcast from his studio… significantly undercuts his claim that he was too ill to attend the deposition,” Judge José Suarez in Connecticut said, as highlighted by the Associated Press. “We conclude that the court reasonably inferred… that the defendant’s failure to attend his deposition… was willful.” Jones previously paid $75,000 in fines and was refunded in tandem with eventually appearing for a deposition. It’s not entirely clear that Jones will now need to pay up again rather than the court simply upholding the legality of the original decision imposing the penalties.
In the defamation cases he faced over his role in Sandy Hook lies, which gave rise to the sought deposition that Jones initially evaded, the far-right figure was repeatedly found liable by default for failing to meet obligations in the discovery process. Discovery, in this context, refers to the routine, pre-trial period in which case-related materials are shared. It’s the same process in which Rudy Giuliani’s failures to comply in a defamation case over his post-2020 election lies led to a similar judgment against him.
