Is Fox News guilty of libeling Gavin Newsom? How California defines defamation
California Gov. Gavin Newsom is taking Fox News to court, filing a $787 million defamation lawsuit over what he calls a deceptively edited video clip aired by host Jesse Watters.
Newsom says the segment wrongly portrayed him as lying about a phone call with President Donald Trump — a claim that the governor argues is both false and damaging.
How does California law define defamation. And what do public figures need to prove in order to win legal battles?
Here’s what to know:
Why is Gavin Newsom suing Fox News?
Newsom alleges that Fox’s hosts misrepresented his call with Trump, falsely implying that the California governor lied.
In the segment, Fox aired remarks by Trump saying he spoke with Newsom “a day ago,” suggesting it was just before Trump deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles in response to protests.
Newsom maintains the call took place days earlier — on June 6 or 7 — and that Trump steered the conversation away when Newsom tried to bring up the unrest.
Newsom claims the edit gave viewers a misleading impression that he lied about having no recent contact with the president, potentially undermining his credibility.
In a statement, Fox News said: “Gov. Newsom’s transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him. We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed.”
The financial damages Newsom is seeking are identical to the amount Fox agreed to pay in 2023 to avoid a trial with Dominion Voting Systems, which sued the network for allegedly knowingly publishing lies that the voting system rigged the 2020 election in favor of Joe Biden.
Newsom says he will drop his case against Fox News if the TV network retracts the claims and issues an on-air apology.
What is considered defamation under California law?
Under California law, defamation occurs when a person publishes a false statement that harms another person’s reputation.
That could result in loss of income, public embarrassment or damage to the person’s standing in the community.
The statement must be presented as a fact — not just an opinion — and shared with others, whether it’s spoken, written or broadcast.
According to Southern California law firm Shouse California Law Group, a person must prove in order to win a defamation case:
- Someone intentionally published a statement of fact.
- The statement was false.
- It was not legally protected (or “privileged”).
- It had a natural tendency to cause harm or led to actual damage.
- The person who made the statement was at least negligent in doing so.
The governor filed his defamation lawsuit in Delaware, where Fox News’ parent company is incorporated.
However, California’s defamation laws are still central to the case because Newsom is a California official, and the alleged harm — viewers being misled — happened in California.
Even though the case is playing out in a Delaware court, the judge can apply California law to decide whether Fox’s statements meet the state’s legal definition of defamation.
What’s the difference between libel and slander?
Slander and libel are two types of defamation, according to San Francisco law firm Stimmel, Stimmel & Roeser.
California law defines libel as “false and unprivileged publication” that “exposes any person to hatred, contempt (or) ridicule” or has the potential to affect the person’s occupation.
Slander, which the law says is “orally uttered,” can include falsely accusing someone of a crime, harming their professional reputation or implying they’re unfit for work.
“If a statement is made verbally, it is slander,” Shouse California Law Group explained. “If made in writing, it is libel.”
You can also be accused of libel if your statement was published in print or posted online.
Newsom’s lawsuit accused Fox News of libel, since statements made by the network were broadcast and shared online — which are considered forms of publication under California law.
What are penalties for defamation of character?
In California, defamation is a civil matter, not a criminal one. This means that the penalties involve money, not jail time.
If someone is found guilty of defamation, the court can order them to pay:
General damages – for harm to the person’s reputation, emotional distress, or embarrassment
Special damages – for specific financial losses, including lost income or job opportunities
Punitive damages – awarded in serious cases to punish especially harmful behavior and discourage it from happening again
Here are some recent high-profile defamation cases that show how damages can vary widely:
Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News in 2023: Fox agreed to a $787.5 million settlement over false claims about election fraud — one of the largest defamation payouts in U.S. history.
James Jordan v. Wonderful Citrus in 2021: A California worker falsely accused of theft by a manager received $4.9 million for reputational harm and emotional distress.
Hearn v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. in 2016: A PG&E lineman blamed for safety violations was awarded $2.16 million. The verdict was later overturned on appeal, showing how courts often reduce or reverse large defamation awards.
What is actual malice?
Under California law, someone suing for libel must formally request a correction within 20 days to be eligible for certain damages — unless they can prove the statement was made with actual malice.
That’s the legal standard that Newsom and other public figures must meet.
To win a defamation case, California’s governor must show the statement was not just false, but made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth.
“Actual malice is a subjective standard that focuses on the defendant’s state of mind at the time of publication,” Minc Law, an Ohio-based law firm. “It does not mean ill will, hatred, or intent to harm ... Rather, it’s about knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.”
Minc Law says someone seeking to prove actual malice must show the defendant “actually knew the statement was false, or had serious doubts about its truth, and published it anyway.”
This story was originally published June 27, 2025 at 2:27 PM with the headline "Is Fox News guilty of libeling Gavin Newsom? How California defines defamation."
CORRECTION: This story has been changed to correct the reference describing the president as “former.”
%20Cropped.jpg)