
A Florida federal judge has allowed Donald Trump's defamation lawsuit against the BBC over a Panorama episode about his January 6 Capitol speech to proceed, while dismissing a separate claim under Florida's unfair trade practices law.
AI-generated summary
Trump filed a $10bn defamation lawsuit against the BBC in Florida over a Panorama episode that edited together two sections of his speech before the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot. The BBC apologised, saying the broadcast gave the mistaken impression that Trump made a direct call for violent action.
A federal judge in Florida has allowed US President Donald Trump's defamation case against the BBC to go ahead after the broadcaster sought to dismiss it.
But Judge Jeffrey Kuntz dismissed a second claim in the $10bn (£7.5bn) lawsuit under the state's unfair trade practices law.
The US president is suing the BBC over an episode of Panorama that edited together two different sections of a speech he gave before the riot at the US Capitol in 2021.
Trump called the judge's ruling a "huge victory" in a Truth Social post on Tuesday. A BBC spokesperson said: "We are surprised by this decision but respect the Court's authority and note the case will now proceed to the next stage."
The BBC spokesperson added: "We remain confident in our position and will continue to respond through the proper legal process."
Judge Kuntz found Trump's defamation allegations against the BBC sufficient for the case to continue, although he did not make a ruling on the merits of the case.
"Whether President Trump can prove these claims and establish he sustained damages at summary judgment or trial is left for another day," he wrote in Tuesday's order.
Trump's lawsuit - filed in Florida - accuses the BBC of "intentionally, maliciously and deceptively doctoring" the speech he gave outside the Capitol on 6 January 2021.
The BBC apologised and said that the broadcast had given "the mistaken impression that Trump made a direct call for violent action".
The broadcaster has since asked that the court dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the programme does not meet the legal criteria for defamation and was not available in the US.
Along with defamation, Trump claimed in the lawsuit that the broadcaster had violated Florida law, specifically the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Kuntz on Tuesday dismissed that part of the lawsuit, ruling that the documentary did not constitute commercial speech.
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
The case will proceed to the next stage of litigation, potentially including summary judgment or trial.
Likely · Within months

The United Kingdom, France, Australia, Canada, South Korea, and other countries are broadcasting Supreme Court and Constitutional Court hearings live on the Internet. The purpose of the principle of public openness of trials stipulated in Article 82 of the Japanese Constitution is to check the judiciary by the sovereign, and if the Supreme Court's arguments are made available online, they can also serve as material for public scrutiny. We spoke to Tetsuro Hirano (57), a former judge and professor at Ritsumeikan University Law School.

The People's Court of Yuyao City, Zhejiang Province concluded a case of using generative artificial intelligence to produce pornographic materials for profit. The defendant Zheng and six others broke through security restrictions through a jailbroken AI model, generated obscene pictures and texts, and charged users a recharge of US$24,000, equivalent to more than 170,000 yuan. The court found that their actions constituted the crime of producing obscene materials for profit, and sentenced them to prison terms of three years and one month to three years and ten months, as well as fines. The judgment has taken effect.
A Tennessee family regained shared driveway access after a state court nullified a neighbour's Deed of Correction and ordered fence removal, but lost a separate federal lawsuit against the City of Oak Hill, where Judge Aleta A Trauger ruled that issuing a building permit did not amount to a constitutional taking of their property rights.
A Tennessee family regained shared driveway access after a state court nullified a neighbour's Deed of Correction and ordered fence removal, but a federal judge dismissed their separate lawsuit against the City of Oak Hill, ruling that issuing a building permit did not constitute a government taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Tennessee is asking a judge to block Christa Pike's attorneys from inspecting leftover pentobarbital from her failed September execution, arguing it would reveal the drug supplier in violation of state secrecy law. Pike, 50, survived two doses and remains in pain; her lawyers want to test the drug to understand what went wrong.

David Walliams lost his legal battle to remain anonymous over allegations against him after the High Court rejected his argument that publication would breach his human rights under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judge ruled the duty to protect his life rested with clinicians and the hospital, not the court, and Walliams failed to file appeal papers by the deadline, allowing the Guardian and ITN to publish their investigation.