N25C-06-251 SPL
Del. Super. Ct.Apr 30, 2026Background
- Governor Newsom and President Trump spoke by phone on June 6-7, 2025, during civil unrest in Los Angeles, and Trump later said they spoke “[a] day ago” at a June 10 press conference. 1
- After Newsom posted on X that there was no call, Trump gave Fox News a call log, and Fox broadcast that “Gavin Lied About Trump’s Call.” 2
- Watters later aired an edited clip omitting Trump’s “[a] day ago” statement, repeated that Newsom lied, and Fox ran a chyron saying “Gavin Lied About Trump’s Call.” 3
- Newsom sued Fox for defamation in Delaware, later amending his complaint and dropping a California Unfair Competition Law claim. 4
- Fox moved to dismiss for forum non conveniens and failure to state a defamation claim, and also sought attorneys’ fees tied to the withdrawn UCL claim. 5
- The court denied Fox’s motions after applying California substantive defamation law and Delaware procedural law. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forum non conveniens 7 | Newsom chose Delaware, Fox showed no overwhelming hardship. | Delaware is inconvenient; California is the proper forum. | Denied; Fox failed to show overwhelming hardship. 8 |
| Falsity/substantial truth 9 | Fox falsely implied Newsom lied about ever speaking with Trump. | The gist was substantially true because Newsom denied the call. | Reasonably conceivable the statements were substantially untrue. 10 |
| Opinion vs. fact 11 | Watters' rhetorical questions and chyron stated provably false facts. | Protected opinion based on disclosed facts and talk-show context. | Reasonably conceivable the statement was nonactionable fact. 12 |
| Actual malice 13 | Fox deliberately omitted key context and pursued a false narrative. | Newsom alleged only conclusory malice. | Reasonably conceivable Fox acted with actual malice. 14 |
| Retraction and special damages 15 | Newsom timely demanded retraction and California law did not bar suit. | The demand was late and Fox's correction defeated the claim. | Neither California retraction law nor Delaware Rule 9(g) barred the claim. 16 |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Foods Corp. v. Cryo-Maid, Inc., 198 A.2d 681 (Del. 1964) (sets the forum non conveniens factors 17)
- Martinez v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., Inc., 86 A.3d 1102 (Del. 2014) (explains Delaware forum non conveniens analysis and hardship standard 18)
- U.S. Dominion, Inc. v. Fox News Network, LLC, 293 A.3d 1002 (Del. Super. Ct. 2023) (actual malice may be inferred from circumstantial evidence 19)
- Dickinson v. Cosby, 225 Cal. Rptr. 3d 430 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (substantial truth does not protect a defamatory gist that is false 20)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (opinions implying provably false facts may be actionable 21)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (public officials must plead and prove actual malice 22)
- Taus v. Loftus, 151 P.3d 1185 (Cal. 2007) (California defamation elements include publication, falsity, and injury 23)
- Mosesian v. McClatchy Newspapers, 233 Cal. App. 3d 1685 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (public officials are subject to actual-malice requirements 24)
- ZL Technologies, Inc. v. Does 1-7, 220 Cal. Rptr. 3d 569 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (pure opinion is protected, but opinion implying false facts is actionable 25)
- Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner, 721 P.2d 87 (Cal. 1986) (California uses a totality-of-the-circumstances test for fact versus opinion 26)