Judge Rules MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell Defamed Smartmatic with False Voting Machine Claims

A federal judge has delivered a significant blow to MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, ruling that he defamed Smartmatic by repeatedly disseminating false claims about the company's electronic voting systems. This pivotal decision means that Smartmatic's multi-billion-dollar lawsuit against Lindell can now proceed to trial solely to determine the extent of damages.

U.S.

District Judge Carl J. Nichols, presiding in Washington, D.C., concluded that Lindell's assertions regarding Smartmatic's alleged role in rigging the 2020 presidential election were demonstrably false and harmful. Lindell, a prominent supporter of former President Donald Trump, used various platforms, including his own documentaries and media appearances, to propagate theories of widespread election fraud, specifically targeting Smartmatic machines as instruments of manipulation.

Smartmatic filed a defamation lawsuit against Lindell, seeking substantial damages for the harm caused to its reputation and business.

The company argued that Lindell's baseless accusations, which claimed its machines were designed to switch votes from Trump to President Joe Biden, were part of a broader, concerted effort to undermine public trust in the election process and its technology.

Judge Nichols' ruling focused on the lack of factual basis for Lindell's claims.

The judge found that Lindell failed to provide any credible evidence to support his allegations, which were often presented as irrefutable truths. This finding is crucial as it establishes that Lindell's statements were not merely expressions of opinion but rather assertions of fact that could be proven false.

The decision moves the case past the liability phase, where the court determines whether defamation occurred, and directly into the damages phase.

This means a jury will now decide how much financial compensation Smartmatic is entitled to receive from Lindell for the damage to its brand and operations. Legal experts suggest that such damages could be substantial, given the widespread nature of Lindell's claims and their potential impact on a company operating in the sensitive sector of election technology.

This ruling is part of a larger legal trend where companies involved in election technology are successfully challenging individuals and media organizations that spread false information about the 2020 election.

Similar lawsuits, including those by Dominion Voting Systems, have already resulted in significant settlements and judgments, underscoring the legal repercussions for those who amplify unverified claims.

Lindell has consistently denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that his claims were based on genuine concerns about election integrity.

However, the court's decision underscores that good intentions, if indeed present, do not absolve individuals from the legal consequences of spreading false and damaging information, especially when it targets specific entities without sufficient evidence.

The upcoming trial on damages promises to be a closely watched development, as it will further define the boundaries of free speech and accountability in the context of political discourse and the dissemination of information in the digital age.

Smartmatic's victory in the liability phase sends a clear message about the legal risks associated with promoting unproven allegations that can severely harm a company's reputation and business.