A federal judge in Florida has ruled for Patrick Byrne in a defamation lawsuit brought by former Dominion Voting Systems director of product strategy and security Eric Coomer over the 2020 election documentary The Deep Rig. Judge Tom Barber of the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment to Byrne, ruling that Coomer failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Byrne acted with actual malice.
The lawsuit centered on statements in the film by Joseph Oltmann, who claimed to have infiltrated a conference call involving Antifa members and heard a speaker say, in substance, that Trump would not win the 2020 election because he had made sure of it. Oltmann later concluded through research and by recognizing Coomer’s voice that the speaker was Coomer. Coomer has denied participating in any such call or manipulating the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Writing for the court, Judge Barber explained that under Colorado law, Coomer had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Byrne subjectively disbelieved the statements or seriously doubted their truth. Evidence that Byrne should have been skeptical was insufficient.
“It would be reasonable to conclude from a totality of the evidence that, had Byrne acted reasonably, he would have concluded that Oltmann’s story was probably false,” Barber wrote. “However, the question for the jury at trial would not be whether Byrne reasonably should have reached that conclusion. It would be whether he did in fact reach that conclusion or at least harbored serious doubts about Oltmann’s story or was highly aware it was probably false.”
Barber said the circumstantial evidence Coomer presented was equally consistent with negligence or a belief in a grand conspiracy theory. He noted that people with "zealously held beliefs hold firm even when overwhelming objective evidence may be to the contrary."
The judge was explicit in his criticism of the actual malice standard itself, noting that if the law did not require clear and convincing evidence of subjective doubt, Byrne's motion would likely have been denied and the case would have gone to a jury. He stated he was bound by the standard as it currently stands.
Byrne was represented by Peter Ticktin and David Lawrence Perry II of The Ticktin Law Group.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The ruling is a significant victory for defendants in defamation cases involving election conspiracy theories, demonstrating the difficulty of proving actual malice when a speaker sincerely holds false beliefs.
- It reinforces a key pillar of First Amendment jurisprudence that protects even outlandish speech unless the speaker knew it was false, a standard the judge himself criticized as potentially in need of reform.
- The case removes one of the last major legal liabilities tied to the Stop the Steal movement, with the court siding with the film's financier.
Background
Eric Coomer was a central figure in post-2020 election conspiracy theories, with false claims about his actions fueling broader narratives about Dominion Voting Systems. The documentary The Deep Rig, financed by former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne, amplified claims that Coomer had plotted to swing the election. Coomer has consistently denied these claims and brought this defamation suit seeking to hold Byrne accountable.
What to Watch
- Coomer's legal team may appeal the summary judgment, which could lead to a higher court review of how the clear and convincing evidence standard applies to conspiracy theory content.
- Judge Barber's strongly worded criticism of the actual malice test could be cited in ongoing debates and legislative efforts to reform defamation law, particularly in the context of election-related speech.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 12 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedEric Coomer lost his defamation suit over the 2020 election documentary The Deep Rig.Reason Magazine: “Eric Coomer (of Dominion Voting) Loses Libel Lawsuit over The Deep Rig.”
- SupportedA Florida judge granted Patrick Byrne summary judgment because Coomer failed to prove actual malice.Reason Magazine: “the evidence is insufficient to support the same conclusion under the much higher clear and convincing standard. Byrne's lack of skepticism, failure to investigate, and disregard for government reports and conclusions by others debunking claims of fraud the 2020 election are equally consistent with negligence”
- SupportedJudge Tom Barber of the Middle District of Florida ruled for Byrne in Coomer’s lawsuit.Reason Magazine: “From Judge Tom Barber (M.D. Fla.) Tuesday in Coomer v. Byrne:”
- SupportedThe film included Oltmann’s claim that he infiltrated an Antifa conference call and heard a speaker say, in substance, that Trump would not win because the speaker had made sure of it.Reason Magazine: “According to Oltmann, the speaker stated on the call in substance that President Donald J. Trump would not win the election because he had "made sure of it."”
- SupportedOltmann later concluded through research and by recognizing Coomer’s voice that Coomer was the speaker.Reason Magazine: “Oltmann clams he later determined through research and by recognizing Coomer's voice that the speaker had been Coomer.”
- SupportedCoomer denied participating in the call or manipulating the 2020 presidential election results.Reason Magazine: “Coomer denies participating in any such call or manipulating the results of the 2020 Presidential election”
- SupportedThe court said Coomer had to show by clear and convincing evidence that Byrne subjectively disbelieved or seriously doubted Oltmann’s story.Reason Magazine: “whether the evidence Coomer points to is sufficient to support a jury finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that Byrne in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann's story.”
- SupportedBarber wrote, “It would be reasonable to conclude from a totality of the evidence that, had Byrne acted reasonably, he would have concluded that Oltmann’s story was probably false.”Reason Magazine: “It would be reasonable to conclude from a totality of the evidence that, had Byrne acted reasonably, he would have concluded that Oltmann's story was probably false”
- SupportedBarber wrote that the jury’s question would be whether Byrne actually reached that conclusion or harbored serious doubts or was highly aware the story was probably false.Reason Magazine: “However, the question for the jury at trial would not be whether Byrne reasonably should have reached that conclusion. It would be whether he did in fact reach that conclusion or at least harbored serious doubts about Oltmann's story or was highly aware it was probably false.”
- SupportedBarber said the evidence was equally consistent with negligence or belief in a grand conspiracy theory.Reason Magazine: “Byrne's lack of skepticism, failure to investigate, and disregard for government reports and conclusions by others debunking claims of fraud the 2020 election are equally consistent with negligence and a belief that there was essentially a coverup going on, in line with the grand conspiracy theory portrayed in the film.”
- SupportedBarber wrote that people with “zealously held beliefs hold firm even when overwhelming objective evidence may be to the contrary.”Reason Magazine: “But those with zealously held beliefs hold firm even when overwhelming objective evidence may be to the contrary.”
- SupportedBarber said that without the clear-and-convincing-evidence requirement, Byrne’s motion likely would have been denied and a jury would have considered the case.Reason Magazine: “if the law did not require "clear and convincing evidence" that the defendant subjectively doubted or disbelieved the published statements, it is likely that Byrne's motion for summary judgment would have been denied, and a jury would have had the opportunity to weigh in on this matter.”