Mike Lindell defamation trial, SmartMatic lawsuit, False claims ruling, Actual malice damages, Election fraud lawsuit

JUST IN: Big ruling against Mike Lindell in his bid to stave off a defamation trial over claims that SmartMatic stole the 2020 election.

Judge rules for SmartMatic that the claims by Lindell et all were false and defamatory. All that’s left for trial: actual malice and damages. pic.twitter.com/MSdKms1WYa

• YOU MAY ALSO LIKE TO WATCH THIS TRENDING STORY ON YOUTUBE.  Waverly Hills Hospital's Horror Story: The Most Haunted Room 502

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) September 26, 2025

In a recent development, Mike Lindell, the CEO of MyPillow, has suffered a major setback in his attempt to avoid a defamation trial regarding his claims that SmartMatic, a voting technology company, stole the 2020 election. A judge has ruled in favor of SmartMatic, stating that the claims made by Lindell and others were false and defamatory. The only remaining issues to be addressed in the upcoming trial are whether there was actual malice in the statements made by Lindell and the amount of damages that will be awarded.

This ruling comes as a blow to Lindell, who has been a vocal proponent of the baseless conspiracy theories surrounding the 2020 election. His claims that SmartMatic was involved in election fraud have been widely debunked, and this legal decision further undermines his credibility on the matter.

The case against Lindell is a clear example of the legal consequences that can arise from spreading misinformation and false claims. While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it does not protect individuals from making defamatory statements that harm the reputation of others. The judge’s ruling in this case reinforces the importance of verifying information before making public accusations, especially when they involve serious allegations like election fraud.

Moving forward, Lindell will have to defend himself in court against the allegations of defamation. The burden will be on him to prove that his statements were not made with malice and that the damages sought by SmartMatic are unwarranted. This trial will likely be closely watched, as it has the potential to set a precedent for holding individuals accountable for spreading false information.

In conclusion, the ruling against Mike Lindell in his defamation case highlights the legal risks associated with making unfounded claims. It serves as a reminder that individuals must be cautious when sharing information, especially when it has the potential to harm others. As the trial progresses, the outcome will shed light on the consequences of spreading misinformation and the importance of upholding truth and accuracy in public discourse.

In a significant ruling, a judge has dealt a blow to MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell in his efforts to avoid a defamation trial surrounding allegations that SmartMatic manipulated the 2020 election results. The judge sided with SmartMatic, finding that the claims made by Lindell and others were untrue and defamatory. This ruling sets the stage for a trial to determine whether there was actual malice involved and what damages may be awarded.

The ruling against Mike Lindell comes as a major development in the ongoing legal battle over the 2020 election. The judge’s decision to allow the defamation trial to proceed indicates that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that false and damaging statements were made by Lindell and his associates regarding SmartMatic’s involvement in the election.

The claims made by Lindell and others have been a source of controversy since the 2020 election, with widespread allegations of voter fraud and election manipulation. SmartMatic, a voting technology company, has been at the center of many of these claims, which have been repeatedly debunked by election officials and fact-checkers.

The judge’s ruling in favor of SmartMatic underscores the seriousness of the allegations made by Lindell and the importance of holding individuals accountable for spreading false information. While the trial will now focus on proving actual malice and determining damages, the initial ruling sets a strong precedent for upholding the truth and protecting the reputation of companies like SmartMatic.

This ruling is a significant victory for SmartMatic and a warning to those who continue to spread misinformation about the 2020 election. The legal system has made it clear that false and defamatory statements will not be tolerated, and those who make such claims will be held accountable.

As the case moves forward, it will be interesting to see how the trial unfolds and what evidence is presented to support the claims of actual malice. The outcome of this trial could have far-reaching implications for how misinformation is addressed in the future and may serve as a deterrent to those who seek to spread false information.

Overall, the ruling against Mike Lindell is a step in the right direction towards upholding the truth and preventing the spread of misinformation. It sends a clear message that individuals must be held accountable for the statements they make, especially when those statements have the potential to harm others.

In conclusion, the ruling against Mike Lindell in his defamation trial over claims of election manipulation by SmartMatic is a significant development in the ongoing legal battle. It underscores the importance of holding individuals accountable for spreading false information and upholding the truth. As the trial progresses, it will be interesting to see how the case unfolds and what impact it may have on future efforts to combat misinformation.

Mike Lindell defamation trial, SmartMatic lawsuit, 2020 election claims, False accusations ruling, Defamation lawsuit update, Trial proceedings, Legal battle update, SmartMatic defamation case, Malicious intent ruling, Court ruling against Lindell, Election fraud claims, Legal victory for SmartMatic, Defamation trial update, False allegations lawsuit, Judicial decision on defamation, SmartMatic defamation trial, Legal consequences for Lindell, Election fraud lawsuit, Trial outcome update, Defamation case development.