Trump claims 'huge victory' as judge allows $10b BBC defamation lawsuit to proceed

The BBC previously admitted the edits were misleading and apologised to Trump, though it denies being liable for defamation.

A US federal judge on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump's $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC to proceed, while denying Trump's unfair trade practices claim against the broadcaster. Florida district court judge Jeffrey T Kuntz ruled that Trump had plausibly alleged reputational damage from the BBC's Panorama documentary, Trump: A Second Chance, which spliced together separate remarks he made nearly 55 minutes apart, the Guardian reported. “Accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, the court finds Trump plausibly pled damages where Trump alleges a defamatory documentary released toward the election caused reputational harm,” Kuntz wrote. The judge said the editing could support an inference that the BBC had acted with actual malice, a legal standard that public figures must establish to win defamation cases. “On its face, the editing may independently establish the plausibility of actual malice,” he wrote, rejecting the BBC's argument that the edits were routine measures to condense a 70-minute speech into a 12-second segment. “Editing is often required. However, given the time disparity between the two statements, the distance itself tends toward a plausible inference that BBC knew or should have known that the segment they were creating would not and could not have been a truthful statement. This was not trimming around the edges but creating something different than what was stated in the speech,” Kuntz added. Trump welcomed the ruling on Truth Social, calling it a “huge victory”. “We will continue fighting against, and defeating, all of those who try to deceive the American People!” he said. The judge also referred to previous errors in the BBC's coverage of Trump, saying they could be relevant to assessing whether the broadcaster had acted recklessly. He said Trump's allegations that the BBC had departed from journalistic standards were sufficient to plausibly establish more than negligence. The BBC said it was surprised by the decision but respected the court's authority. “We remain confident in our position and will continue to respond through the proper legal process,” the broadcaster said in a statement. However, according to the Guardian, the ruling does not establish that the BBC is liable for defamation. Trump will still have to prove at trial that the broadcaster acted with actual malice and that he suffered actual damages from the documentary's broadcast. The judge also noted that the programme was not aired in Florida. Kuntz dismissed Trump's claim that the BBC had violated Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.