Fox Wins Lawsuit Against Tarlov Brought by Hunter Biden Whistleblower
A New York judge threw out Tony Bobulinski’s $30 million defamation suit against Fox News co-host Jessica Tarlov and ordered Bobulinski to pay Tarlov’s legal bills.
“Before the Court is Tarlov’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and motion for attorney’s fees under New York’s anti-SLAPP law. For the reasons that follow, the motion to dismiss is granted. And because the Court concludes that the mandatory fee-shifting provision of New York’s anti-SLAPP law applies in federal court, Tarlov’s motion for attorney’s fees is also granted,” District Judge J. Paul Oetken said in his decision.
A spokesperson for Fox News said in a statement, “FOX News is pleased with the court’s landmark decision, which not only dismissed Tony Bobulinski and Stefan Passantino’s meritless allegations against Jessica Tarlov, but also marks the first federal court decision to award attorney’s fees under New York’s anti-SLAPP statute.”
Read more: ‘STUPID’: TERMINATION – Trump Makes Big Early Morning Announcement That Rocks DC
Bobulinski, who used to work with Hunter Biden, sued Tarlov in March for something she said in January on the popular show “The Five,” where she is a co-host. In a conversation with Judge Jeanine Pirro, Tarlov said, “Okay, a Trump Super PAC paid for Tony Bobulinski’s lawyers’ fees.”
As promised, Bobulinski’s lawyer Jesse Binall wrote Fox Corp. a letter the next day demanding that Tarlov retract her statement and issue an apology. He also said that he would “immediately file a defamation lawsuit against Fox and Ms. Tarlov if this lie is not retracted by Ms. Tarlov on-air today.”
Read more: JUST IN: White House Announcement STUNS Media – Trump Is Smiling
The next day, Tarlov talked about the comments on the radio and gave more information: ” I would like to clarify a comment I made yesterday during our discussion of Tony Bobulinski’s appearance at the congressional hearing. During an exchange with my colleagues about the hearing I said that Mr. Bobulinski’s lawyers’ fees have been paid by a Trump super PAC as recent as January. What was actually said during the hearing was that the law firm representing Mr. Bobulinski was paid by a Trump PAC. I have seen no indication those payments were made in connection with Mr. Bobulinski’s legal fees and he denies that they were.”
Binall sent an additional letter demanding a second “complete retraction and apology.”
Fox News soon replied, “I am responding to your letter of March 22, 2024, to Jeff Taylor concerning the correction that Jessica Tarlov made on “The Five” on March 21, 2024. Her correction was accurate, and we will not be issuing any further correction.”
Read more: ‘STOP THAT’: Trump Goes OFF in Oval Office — He’s NOT Messing Around
After that, Bobulinski and his lawyers sued Tarlov and asked for $30 million in damages for compensation, special, and punitive reasons, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees.
Hunter Biden Whistleblower's $30 Million Defamation Lawsuit Against Fox News, Jessica Tarlov Dismissed by Judge https://t.co/4BZixtf9Ft
— TheWrap (@TheWrap) November 27, 2024
At the time of the lawsuit, Fox News again defended Tarlov, saying, “Jessica Tarlov’s March 21st statements were accurate and made it clear that she was not aware of anything to suggest that payments from a Trump PAC to Elections, LLC were made in connection with Tony Bobulinski’s legal fees. We are sticking to our choice not to make any more corrections, and we will fight these false claims with all our might.”
The court shot down Bobulinski on all points.
Read more: Dem MS-13 Sympathizer Could Face Wrath Of AG Bondi After Traveling To El Salvador
Judge Oetken concluded, “Bobulinski also fails to adequately allege that Tarlov’s statements tended to injure him in his capacity as a businessman. The New York Court of Appeals has held that, for a statement to qualify as defamation per se under the professional conduct exception, the statement must specifically reference conduct that is incompatible with a person’s profession, ‘rather than a more general reflection upon the plaintiff’s character or qualities.’”
