LONDON (AP) - President Donald Trump's recent threat to file a billion-dollar lawsuit against the BBC has created a cloud of uncertainty over the future of the British broadcaster. However, legal experts suggest that this threat may lack substantial legal merit and could be more of a bluff.
The president's legal counsel has expressed their grievances regarding a documentary aired by the BBC that edited his speech from January 6, 2021. This speech coincided with the violent storming of the U.S. Capitol by his supporters, as Congress was certifying President-elect Joe Biden's victory. The BBC documentary, titled "Trump: A Second Chance?," aired just days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election.
In the controversial documentary, Trump's rhetoric was spliced in a manner that created an impression of a direct call to violence. Notably, parts of the speech where he urged followers to "demonstrate peacefully" were omitted. Following backlash over the editing, BBC Chairman Samir Shah apologized for the misleading representation. This led to the resignation of Director-General Tim Davie and news chief Deborah Turness amid accusations of bias and faulty editing.
While Trump has a well-documented history of suing media companies — with some notable settlements — the ability for him to successfully litigate this case faces numerous constraints. Experts point out that the one-year deadline to initiate a lawsuit in England has already lapsed, which makes taking legal action in the UK unlikely. Even if Trump were to overcome that technical barrier, defamation awards in the British High Court typically do not surpass £100,000 (approximately $132,000).
Despite these challenges, Trump could still pursue a defamation claim in several U.S. states, such as Florida, and his lawyer referenced Florida law in the communication to the BBC. Nevertheless, the reality is that prevailing in court is considerably more difficult than simply filing a lawsuit. For instance, the key challenge is that the BBC's program was not broadcast in the U.S., and thus the argument that it caused reputational harm to Trump would be weak. Media lawyer Mark Stephens articulated this by highlighting the existing damage to Trump’s reputation post-January 6, suggesting that claiming additional harm from the documentary would be a tough sell.
In the letter sent to the BBC, Trump's legal representative Alejandro Brito demanded an apology and a retraction of what he described as "false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading, or inflammatory statements" regarding Trump. They specified an amount of no less than $1 billion, a figure underscored in numeric form, and threatened legal action should the BBC fail to comply by a specified deadline.
Legal analysts are skeptical about Trump's chance of success, noting that similar claims of defamation against media outlets often face significant hurdles. Nevertheless, the power of litigation as a strategic maneuver remains evident. David Allen Green, a London lawyer, opined that while the litigation letter appears theatrically ill-formed, it still could serve as a leverage point due to the questionable editing of the documentary.
There have been precedents where Trump has successfully extracted settlements from U.S. media companies, including a $16 million settlement from CBS regarding an edited interview with Kamala Harris and a $15 million settlement from ABC News over inaccurate statements regarding allegations of sexual assault made against him. These instances indicate a pattern where Trump has been able to leverage threats of litigation for financial gain.
Legal experts remain divided on how this situation will unfold, yet they agree that the BBC should stand firm against Trump’s barrage of legal threats. The likelihood of Trump receiving a billion-dollar payout seems slim; however, it underscores the ongoing friction between him and the media, particularly in light of how events of January 6 have been portrayed.
