New York Judge Dismisses Bobulinski’s $30 Million Defamation Suit Against Fox’s Tarlov in Landmark Anti-SLAPP Ruling

In a decision with potentially far-reaching implications for media law and freedom of expression, U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken has dismissed Tony Bobulinski’s $30 million defamation lawsuit against Fox News co-host Jessica Tarlov and ordered Bobulinski to pay Tarlov’s legal expenses. The ruling, which represents the first time a federal court has awarded attorney’s fees under New York’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute, could establish an important precedent for the protection of journalists and commentators against defamation claims designed to silence public discourse.

The Court’s Decision: A Comprehensive Dismissal

Judge Oetken’s ruling was unambiguous in its rejection of Bobulinski’s claims. “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,” the judge wrote in his decision.

The ruling represents a complete victory for Tarlov and Fox News, with the court not only dismissing all of Bobulinski’s claims but also requiring him to pay Tarlov’s legal expenses—a significant financial consequence that underscores the court’s determination that the lawsuit lacked merit.

Fox News was quick to celebrate the decision, with a spokesperson stating: “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.” This characterization of the ruling as “landmark” reflects its potential importance as a legal precedent for future cases involving allegations of defamation against media figures.

The Origins of the Dispute: A Televised Comment and Its Aftermath

The lawsuit stemmed from comments Tarlov made during a January 2024 broadcast of Fox News’ popular program “The Five,” where she serves as a co-host and typically represents liberal viewpoints among the show’s predominantly conservative panel. During a discussion with co-host Judge Jeanine Pirro about Bobulinski’s testimony before Congress regarding the Biden family’s business dealings, Tarlov stated: “Okay, a Trump Super PAC paid for Tony Bobulinski’s lawyers’ fees.”

Bobulinski, a former business associate of Hunter Biden who has become a prominent figure in Republican investigations into the Biden family’s international business activities, took immediate exception to this characterization. Through his attorney Jesse Binnall, Bobulinski sent a letter to Fox Corp. the following day demanding an on-air retraction and apology from Tarlov. The letter included an explicit threat of immediate legal action, stating that Binnall would “immediately file a defamation lawsuit against Fox and Ms. Tarlov if this lie is not retracted by Ms. Tarlov on-air today.”

In response to this demand, Tarlov addressed the matter on “The Five” the next day, offering a clarification of her previous statement: “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.”

This clarification, however, did not satisfy Bobulinski and his legal team. Binnall sent a second letter demanding a “complete retraction and apology,” characterizing Tarlov’s clarification as insufficient to address the alleged defamation.

Fox News stood firm behind Tarlov, responding to Binnall’s second letter by stating: “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.”

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

The Lawsuit and Bobulinski’s Claims

Following Fox News’ refusal to issue a further retraction or apology, Bobulinski and his legal team filed a defamation lawsuit in March 2024, seeking $30 million in compensatory, special, and punitive damages, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees. The substantial damages sought reflected Bobulinski’s claim that Tarlov’s statement had caused significant harm to his reputation and business interests.

The lawsuit alleged that Tarlov’s statement—that a Trump Super PAC had paid for Bobulinski’s legal fees—was false and defamatory per se, meaning that it was so inherently harmful to Bobulinski’s reputation that damages could be presumed without specific proof of actual harm. The complaint further argued that the statement implied Bobulinski was not an independent witness but rather a partisan actor whose testimony was essentially purchased by Trump-aligned political interests.

Bobulinski’s lawsuit contended that this characterization undermined his credibility as a witness before Congress and damaged his reputation in the business community by suggesting he was willing to sell his testimony for financial gain. The complaint asserted that Tarlov had made the statement with actual malice—knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity—a standard that public figures must typically meet to prevail in defamation cases.

Throughout the legal proceedings, Fox News maintained its support for Tarlov, stating at the time of the lawsuit: “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’s Analysis: Why Bobulinski’s Claims Failed

Judge Oetken’s ruling systematically dismantled Bobulinski’s legal arguments, finding multiple grounds for dismissing the defamation claim. One of the central elements of the court’s analysis focused on whether Tarlov’s statement constituted defamation per se—a legal concept that applies to statements so inherently damaging to one’s reputation that no proof of actual damages is required.

The court rejected Bobulinski’s argument that the statement qualified as defamation per se under the “professional conduct” exception. As Judge Oetken explained: “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.’”

In other words, the court found that Tarlov’s statement about Bobulinski’s legal fees being paid by a Trump Super PAC did not specifically allege conduct that would be incompatible with his profession as a businessman. The statement did not, for example, accuse him of fraud, dishonesty in business dealings, or professional incompetence—the types of allegations that might qualify as defamation per se under the professional conduct exception.

The court also appears to have been unpersuaded by Bobulinski’s arguments regarding actual malice—that Tarlov knew her statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. Tarlov’s prompt clarification on air the day after her original statement, acknowledging that what was actually said during the congressional hearing was that the law firm representing Bobulinski (not necessarily Bobulinski himself) had received payments from a Trump PAC, undermined the claim that she had acted with actual malice.

New York’s Anti-SLAPP Law and Its Application

Perhaps the most legally significant aspect of Judge Oetken’s ruling was his determination that New York’s anti-SLAPP law applies in federal court—a conclusion that led to the mandatory fee-shifting provision requiring Bobulinski to pay Tarlov’s legal expenses.

SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) are legal actions primarily intended to censor, intimidate, or silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to provide a remedy against such suits, typically allowing for early dismissal of meritless claims and, crucially, requiring plaintiffs to pay defendants’ legal fees when their suits are dismissed.

New York significantly strengthened its anti-SLAPP protections in 2020, expanding the law’s coverage and making the fee-shifting provision mandatory when a case is dismissed under the statute. The law now applies to any communication in a public forum regarding an issue of public interest—a category that would clearly include a television discussion about congressional testimony on a matter of national political significance.

Judge Oetken’s ruling that New York’s anti-SLAPP fee-shifting provision applies in federal court has potentially far-reaching implications for media law. It suggests that federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction (hearing state law claims between citizens of different states) will enforce state anti-SLAPP protections, including mandatory attorney’s fee awards. This could provide significant protection for journalists and commentators facing defamation claims in federal court based on their coverage of matters of public interest.

Legal experts note that the application of state anti-SLAPP laws in federal court has been somewhat unsettled, with circuit courts reaching different conclusions on the question. Judge Oetken’s decision represents an important data point in this ongoing legal conversation and could influence how other federal courts approach similar cases.

Broader Context: Media Freedom and Defamation Claims

The Bobulinski-Tarlov case unfolds against a backdrop of increasing concern about the use of defamation lawsuits to chill media coverage and public debate on politically charged topics. High-profile defamation cases—such as Dominion Voting Systems’ successful lawsuit against Fox News over false election fraud claims and former President Trump’s ongoing litigation against various media outlets—have highlighted the tension between protecting individual reputations and ensuring robust public discourse.

New York’s enhanced anti-SLAPP law, and Judge Oetken’s application of it in federal court, represents one approach to balancing these competing interests. By providing for early dismissal of meritless claims and shifting legal costs to unsuccessful plaintiffs, anti-SLAPP laws aim to deter frivolous defamation suits while still allowing legitimate claims to proceed.

First Amendment advocates have generally praised the strengthening of anti-SLAPP protections, arguing that they are essential to preventing wealthy or powerful individuals from using the threat of expensive litigation to silence critics or suppress unfavorable coverage. Media organizations, regardless of their political orientation, have a shared interest in strong anti-SLAPP protections that reduce the financial risk associated with covering controversial topics.

Critics of expanded anti-SLAPP laws, however, express concern that they may make it too difficult for individuals who have been genuinely defamed to seek redress, particularly if they lack the resources to pursue litigation against well-funded media organizations. They argue that the balance may have shifted too far in favor of media defendants at the expense of individual reputational interests.

The Political Dimension: Bobulinski, Biden, and Partisan Media Coverage

The lawsuit and its dismissal cannot be fully understood without acknowledging the highly charged political context in which they occurred. Bobulinski emerged as a key figure in Republican investigations into the Biden family’s business dealings during the 2020 presidential campaign, claiming firsthand knowledge of Hunter Biden’s business activities and alleging that Joe Biden was involved in his son’s foreign ventures—claims the Biden family has consistently denied.

Bobulinski’s congressional testimony in January 2024 was part of ongoing Republican-led investigations into the Biden family, which Democrats have characterized as politically motivated. His appearance before Congress was extensively covered by conservative media outlets, including Fox News, where it received significant attention.

Tarlov, as one of the few liberal voices on Fox News, often presents perspectives that differ from the network’s predominantly conservative commentators. Her statement about Bobulinski’s legal fees being paid by a Trump Super PAC occurred in this context—during a discussion where she was likely attempting to raise questions about Bobulinski’s independence as a witness.

The subsequent legal battle, with its $30 million demand and insistence on a complete retraction and apology despite Tarlov’s on-air clarification, reflects the intensity of these partisan divisions. Judge Oetken’s ruling, however, suggests that the legal system can still provide a neutral arbiter for such disputes, focusing on established legal principles rather than political considerations.

Bobulinski’s Legal Team and Strategy

Throughout this legal confrontation, Bobulinski was represented by attorney Jesse Binnall, who has been involved in several high-profile cases connected to former President Trump and his allies. Binnall previously represented Trump in an unsuccessful lawsuit challenging the 2020 election results in Nevada and has been involved in other politically charged litigation.

The legal strategy employed in the Bobulinski case—demanding an immediate retraction and apology with the explicit threat of a major lawsuit, then following through with a $30 million claim despite Tarlov’s clarification—reflects an aggressive approach that the court ultimately found unpersuasive.

The complaint’s framing of Tarlov’s statement as defamation per se was a key strategic choice, as it would have allowed Bobulinski to proceed without having to prove specific damages resulting from the alleged defamation. Judge Oetken’s rejection of this characterization effectively undermined a central pillar of the legal strategy.

The decision to seek $30 million in damages—an extraordinarily large sum for a defamation case based on a single statement that was promptly clarified—may have influenced the court’s perception of the lawsuit’s intent and merit. Such substantial damages claims in defamation cases often face heightened scrutiny from courts concerned about potential chilling effects on protected speech.

Fox News’ Institutional Response

Fox News’ handling of the situation—standing firmly behind Tarlov while allowing her to clarify her statement—represents an interesting case study in how media organizations respond to defamation threats. Despite Fox News’ generally conservative orientation and Tarlov’s liberal perspective, the network provided unequivocal support for its commentator in the face of legal threats from a figure who had been favorably featured in the network’s coverage of the Biden investigations.

This institutional response reflects the reality that media organizations of all political orientations share a common interest in protecting their commentators’ ability to discuss matters of public interest without facing ruinous litigation. Fox News’ celebration of the “landmark decision” in Tarlov’s favor underscores this shared interest in strong legal protections for media speech.

The case also highlights the complex internal dynamics at Fox News, where liberal voices like Tarlov’s are included in programming that otherwise leans strongly conservative. Despite potential ideological disagreements with much of the network’s content, Tarlov received full institutional support when faced with a defamation claim—a reminder that professional and legal considerations can sometimes transcend partisan divides within media organizations.

The Future of Anti-SLAPP Protections in Federal Courts

Judge Oetken’s ruling that New York’s anti-SLAPP law applies in federal court could have significant implications for similar cases in the future. The decision adds to a growing body of federal case law addressing whether and how state anti-SLAPP statutes should be applied in federal diversity cases.

This question has divided federal appeals courts, with some circuits holding that certain provisions of state anti-SLAPP laws conflict with federal procedural rules and therefore should not apply in federal court, while others have found ways to harmonize state anti-SLAPP protections with federal procedure. The Supreme Court has not yet definitively resolved this circuit split.

Judge Oetken’s decision—particularly the application of the mandatory fee-shifting provision—represents a robust interpretation of state anti-SLAPP protections in the federal context. If followed by other courts, this approach would strengthen protections for media defendants facing state-law defamation claims in federal court.

Some legal experts have suggested that a uniform federal anti-SLAPP law would provide a more consistent solution, establishing clear protections for speech on matters of public interest regardless of which court hears a case. Various versions of such legislation have been proposed in Congress but have not yet been enacted.

Until such federal legislation exists, decisions like Judge Oetken’s will continue to shape the evolving landscape of anti-SLAPP protections in federal courts, with potentially significant consequences for media freedom and public discourse on controversial topics.

Implications for Future Political Defamation Claims

The dismissal of Bobulinski’s lawsuit may influence how similar defamation claims arising from political commentary are evaluated in the future. The case illustrates the high bar public figures must clear to prevail in defamation actions, particularly when the allegedly defamatory statements concern matters of public interest and political significance.

For political figures and those who become involved in political controversies, the ruling reinforces the reality that entering the political arena typically subjects one to a higher standard for defamation claims. Courts remain wary of allowing defamation lawsuits to become tools for suppressing political debate or punishing commentary on matters of public concern.

Media organizations and commentators, meanwhile, may take some reassurance from the decision’s affirmation of significant legal protections for discussion of politically charged topics. The application of New York’s anti-SLAPP law in federal court, with its mandatory fee-shifting provision, reduces the financial risk associated with covering controversial political subjects—at least for cases brought under New York law.

The decision does not, however, eliminate the need for journalistic care and accuracy. Tarlov’s prompt on-air clarification of her original statement likely played an important role in the court’s evaluation of the case. Media figures who make erroneous statements about public figures would be wise to follow a similar approach, promptly correcting the record when inaccuracies are identified.

Conclusion: A Significant Victory for Media Protections

Judge Oetken’s dismissal of Bobulinski’s defamation lawsuit against Jessica Tarlov represents a significant victory not just for Fox News and its commentator, but potentially for media protections more broadly. The first-time application of New York’s anti-SLAPP fee-shifting provision in federal court establishes an important precedent that could influence how similar cases are handled in the future.

The ruling reaffirms the high bar public figures must clear to prevail in defamation actions against media commentators discussing matters of public interest. By requiring Bobulinski to pay Tarlov’s legal expenses, the decision also creates a tangible financial consequence for bringing what the court deemed a meritless defamation claim—exactly the deterrent effect anti-SLAPP laws are designed to create.

As political polarization continues to intensify and defamation claims increasingly become weapons in partisan battles, decisions like Judge Oetken’s play a crucial role in defining the legal boundaries of political discourse. By protecting good-faith commentary on matters of public interest while still allowing truly defamatory speech to be sanctioned, courts navigate the delicate balance between reputational protection and freedom of expression that lies at the heart of defamation law.

The case may eventually be remembered less for the specific dispute between Bobulinski and Tarlov than for its contribution to the evolving legal framework surrounding anti-SLAPP protections in federal court—a framework that will shape the landscape of political and media speech for years to come.