My understanding of tort law is that you sue for damages suffered. If Trump won the election in spite of the Harris interview, how can he claim damages? And therefore why would Paramount settle a case that the court should refuse to even hear?
Aftereffects of the deal are likely to linger. Journalists were infuriated Wednesday and a senator wants to investigate whether bribery laws were broken. The company was hoping to put the issue to rest as it seeks administration approval of a merger.
Paramount, which owns CBS, says the money will go to Trump’s future presidential library and to pay his legal fees, and it is not apologizing or expressing regret about the story. The company announced the deal overnight, before a Wednesday morning shareholders meeting.
…
But the Trump-appointed head of the Federal Communications Commission launched an investigation — a complication for Paramount as it seeks administration approval of its proposed merger with Skydance Media.
Stranger
Because they’re paying a bribe / being extorted.
The answers above are about as far as it’s possible to go in the Factual Questions forum.
The bottom line is, most legal experts agreed that Trump had no valid claim of damages, and if the network had stuck to their guns, they would have prevailed. But as has become common, the legal system can be abused for extrajudicial purposes by people with the resources to pursue flimsy actions. In this case, a larger business deal was at stake, and the corporation calculated that resistance would be expensive and surrender was financially advantageous.
More than that would require discussion in a different venue, I think.
Mehdi Hasan summarizes the lawsuit and the absurdity of the settlement in under a minute:
Stranger
Yes, it’s hard to give a “factual” answer when the real, underlying issue is that the facts don’t matter in this case. Trump was always going to sue, regardless of the merits of the case. The only questions were if he would corruptly use his position as president to coerce the other side into capitulation, and if they’d capitulate.
For the OP’s benefit: a detailed explainer with legal analysis and contextual background. The article’s language is slanted toward a particular point of view, but the facts are beyond dispute.
For anyone that doesn’t want to dive too deep, the predominant theory is that they settled because they have an upcoming merger that they will need government approval for.
I understand that they are trying to cover their merger. But there is no way they would have lost this if it had gone to court. In some cases they might be excused for making a business decision, saying that the $16 million is cheaper and faster than a court battle, even if they won. But there are journalistic principles at play that affect far more than just one company. What this boils down to is that Trump offered them a legal way to make a bribe, and the suits took the bait.
Which neither the management of Paramount Global or Skydance Media appear to be at all concerned about. As far as they are concerned, journalistic integrity and $16M will get you a really profitable merger. But at least they haven’t killed anyone for having lousy ratings.
Yet.
Stranger