Voting equipment manufacturer Dominion sues Rudy Giuliani over fraud claims

US voting equipment manufacturer Dominion is seeking $1.7bn in damages from Rudy Giuliani over claims it rigged the election.

Mr Giuliani was among the highest-profile promoters of allegations against Dominion. Picture: AFP

Dominion Voting Systems sued Rudy Giuliani, saying former President Donald Trump’s personal attorney defamed the company by spreading accusations that it rigged the 2020 election for President Biden.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks more than $US1.3bn ($1.7bn) in damages.

Mr Giuliani and his allies spread allegations against Dominion “which foreseeably went viral and deceived millions of people into believing that Dominion had stolen their votes and fixed the election,” the company said in the complaint.

“Not only have these lies damaged the good name of Dominion Voting, they’ve also undermined trust in American democratic institutions, drowning out the remarkable work of election officials and workers, who ensured a transparent and secure election,” said Dominion Chief Executive John Poulos during a call with reporters overnight (Tuesday AEDT).

Mr Giuliani in a statement said the lawsuit would “allow me to investigate their history, finances, and practices fully and completely” and said it amounted to “another act of intimidation by the hate-filled left-wing to wipe out and censor the exercise of free speech, as well as the ability of lawyers to defend their clients vigorously.” He said he planned to look into a countersuit against the company for violating his constitutional rights.

Dominion supplies voting machines and other election equipment used by more than 40 per cent of US voters, according to the company’s website.

In November, the Denver-based company became the target of a blizzard of unproven allegations that it rigged the presidential election, which the company says have damaged its reputation and led to death threats against employees.

US federal and state officials have said there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or changed votes during the November election.

Mr Giuliani was among the highest-profile promoters of allegations against Dominion in the months after Mr Trump’s election loss and promoted the idea that the election had been stolen. On Twitter, he asked on November 11: “Any information about Dominion? Strange to pick a foreign company to count the US vote. Something wrong with this?”

Dominion says it began as a Canadian company but later was incorporated in the US and is now an American company.

In a January 6 rally where Mr. Trump also spoke, Mr. Giuliani said, “Last night, one of the experts that has examined these crooked Dominion machines has absolutely what he believes is conclusive proof that in the last 10 per cent, 15 per cent of the vote counted, the votes were deliberately changed. By the same algorithm that was used in cheating President Trump and Vice President Pence. Same algorithm, same system, same thing was done with the same machines.”

Mr Giuliani urged supporters at the rally to pursue “trial by combat.” Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol later that day.

In pursuing a defamation claim against Mr Giuliani, Dominion would likely have to establish that he acted with “actual malice,” a generally daunting standard of proof in defamation cases.

If Dominion is deemed a public figure or wants to pursue punitive damages, it would have to show with clear and convincing evidence that Mr Giuliani made defamatory statements with either knowledge of their falsity or that he recklessly disregarded whether they were false.

To prove “actual malice,” it wouldn’t be enough to show that Mr Giuliani should have known better or acted with ill will toward Dominion. Unless it can be proven that Mr Giulaini knew he was spreading malicious falsehoods, Dominion would have to establish that he at least had serious doubts about his claims or that his assertions were so inherently improbable that he must have harboured doubts.

“There must be conscious awareness either that the statements were false, or at least likely false,” said Eugene Volokh, a professor and defamation expert at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law.

Tom Clare, an attorney for Dominion, said Monday the company is prepared to prove actual malice if necessary.

There is “ample evidence of actual malice here by Mr Giuliani,” Mr Clare told reporters, saying the complaint laid out such examples.

Mr Clare said courts have shown that “if you are relying on sources that are not reliable, if you’re repeating allegations that have been discredited, if you refuse to retract false statements that you have made after you have been made aware of the basis for the falsity, those are all things that can support a finding of actual malice.”

Dominion also sued former Trump attorney Sidney Powell for defamation earlier this month.

On Monday, Ms Powell said in an email that she didn’t publish any statement with actual knowledge of falsity and that she has credible evidence. “Actual malice cannot be proven when it does not exist, and it does not exist with my allegations against Dominion,” she said.

Additional reporting: Jacob Gershman, Ballhaus.

The Wall Street Journal