Kevin O'Leary, Fox News Sued for Defamation Over Alleged CCP Smear Campaign Against Utah Advocacy Groups

Kevin O'Leary, Fox News Sued for Defamation Over Alleged CCP Smear Campaign Against Utah Advocacy Groups

Two Utah advocacy groups and their founders sued "Shark Tank" investor Kevin O'Leary and Fox News for defamation on July 15, 2026, in Utah federal court, alleging he falsely tied them to the Chinese Communist Party across more than 10 on-air appearances. Nothing has been decided; the claims described below are allegations.

Information last verified on July 18, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Status: As of July 18, 2026, this is a newly filed complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. No court has ruled on the claims. The allegations described here are the plaintiffs' contentions; O'Leary and Fox News dispute the suit, and Fox says it corrected the record on air.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers a defamation lawsuit filed in Utah federal court and explains general US defamation and actual-malice law. It is general information, not legal advice.

What Happened

According to the complaint, Alliance for a Better Utah, Elevate Strategies, and their founders, Joshua Kanter and Gabrielle Finlayson, filed a defamation lawsuit on July 15, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, naming Kevin O'Leary and Fox News Media as defendants. The complaint alleges that across at least 10 appearances on Fox News and Fox Business programs, including a May 11, 2026 interview on Mornings with Maria, and at least one appearance on The Tucker Carlson Show, O'Leary claimed the plaintiffs were taking content from the Chinese Communist Party, repurposing it, and pushing it on Utahns through his social media accounts. The plaintiffs allege these claims arose amid local opposition to O'Leary's proposed Stratos AI data center project in Box Elder County, Utah, and that he used the claims to explain away that opposition.

On June 25, 2026, O'Leary posted a statement on social media clarifying that he had no evidence Alliance for a Better Utah, Elevate Strategies, Finlayson, or Kanter were funded by China, and a Fox host apologized on air the next day. The plaintiffs allege the disputed claims had already caused harm and continued to circulate afterward, causing reputational harm, economic loss, emotional distress, and threats to their physical safety, and they seek relief through the court. Fox News Media has stated on the record that it publicly corrected the record on every program where O'Leary's comments were made and that it intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

What the Law Actually Says

Defamation claims generally require a false statement of fact about the plaintiff, publication or communication of that statement to a third party, fault on the part of the speaker, and damages, though some categories of statements are treated as harmful on their face. General information on the elements of a defamation claim explains how courts typically evaluate these factors state by state.

Because the plaintiffs are advocacy organizations and individuals who inserted themselves into a public controversy over a data center project, they are likely to be treated as limited-purpose public figures for that controversy. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), held that a public official suing over statements relating to his official conduct must prove actual malice, meaning the speaker knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard of whether it was false. Private figures often need only show negligence, but actual malice is the more demanding standard typically applied to public figures. Recordinglaw's overview of public-figure defamation and the actual-malice standard walks through how courts apply that test.

Reckless disregard does not require proof the speaker was certain a statement was false; courts look at whether the speaker had serious doubts about the truth of a statement and spoke anyway. The complaint's allegation that O'Leary acknowledged around June 25, 2026 that he had no evidence for the funding claim, yet that similar claims allegedly continued afterward, is the kind of sequence plaintiffs typically point to when arguing a defendant's own words show doubt about the truth of a statement combined with continued repetition. Courts examine the full record, and an admission alone does not resolve a defamation claim.

A retraction demand, often required or encouraged under state retraction statutes before certain damages become available, gives a defendant notice of an alleged falsehood and an opportunity to correct the record; whether a demand was made and how a defendant responded can matter to both liability and damages. Fox News Media's on-record statement that it corrected the record on every program where O'Leary's comments were made, and the on-air apology the day after O'Leary's own clarification, reflect the kind of response networks may point to in defending against these claims.

Broadcasters can face liability for a guest's on-air statements depending on the circumstances, including how much editorial control the network exercised, whether hosts endorsed or amplified the statements, and whether the network had notice of a dispute and failed to act. Utah's own defamation framework, discussed in recordinglaw's overview of Utah defamation law, applies general common-law and constitutional defamation principles similar to those in most states, layered with the federal constitutional protections from Sullivan that apply nationwide.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

This lawsuit pairs a well-known media figure and a major cable news operation as co-defendants, which tends to draw outsized attention regardless of how the case is ultimately resolved. The core factual dispute, whether O'Leary's June 25 clarification was followed by continued repetition of similar claims, is a textbook actual-malice fact pattern: plaintiffs in these cases often build their argument around a defendant's own words rather than external proof of falsity, because an admission like that is difficult to explain away. That does not resolve the case; defendants regularly dispute the plaintiffs' characterization of what was said or argue the statements were opinion rather than fact.

The suit also revives a recurring media-law question: how much responsibility a network bears for a repeat guest's on-air claims when hosts do not push back in the moment, even though a correction followed. Recordinglaw has tracked this question across other Fox News defamation lawsuits. Nothing about this case has been decided, and both outcomes, dismissal or a finding of liability, remain possible depending on facts not yet before the public.

How Public-Figure Defamation Generally Works

Public-figure defamation cases are difficult to win, by design. The actual-malice standard set out in Sullivan protects robust debate on public issues, including sharp criticism of government and public officials. Under Sullivan, a public-official plaintiff must show with convincing clarity that the speaker knew a statement was false or acted with reckless disregard of whether it was false. Simply being wrong, or even negligent, is not enough to show actual malice. This is general information about how these cases typically work, not an assessment of the O'Leary or Fox News matter specifically, and not legal advice for any individual's situation.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers a pending federal defamation lawsuit and general US defamation law, verified as of July 18, 2026. This story is developing and nothing has been decided; consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.

Related articles

• public-figure defamation and the actual-malice standard
• Utah defamation law
• other Fox News defamation lawsuits

---

Last updated: 2026-07-18. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-07-18.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why are Kevin O'Leary and Fox News being sued?

According to a complaint filed July 15, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, two Utah advocacy groups and their founders allege O'Leary made false statements across more than 10 Fox appearances tying them to the Chinese Communist Party. The allegations are unproven, and Fox says it corrected the record on air.

What is actual malice in a defamation case?

Actual malice, from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), means a speaker knew a statement was false or acted with reckless disregard of whether it was false. Sullivan applied that requirement to public officials suing over statements relating to their official conduct.

Can you sue a TV network for what a guest says on air?

Sometimes. Liability can depend on the network's editorial control, whether hosts endorsed a guest's statements, and whether the network had notice of a dispute. Outcomes vary case by case.

Does admitting you have no evidence prove defamation?

Not by itself. A public acknowledgment that a speaker has no evidence for a claim can support an argument the speaker doubted the truth of the claim, relevant to reckless disregard, but a defamation claim still requires proving falsity, fault, publication, and damages.

What is a retraction demand?

A retraction demand is a notice, often required or encouraged under state law, telling a publisher or speaker that a statement is alleged to be false and asking for a correction. It can affect what damages a plaintiff can later recover and gives the speaker a chance to address the dispute.

Where was the O'Leary defamation lawsuit filed?

The complaint was filed on July 15, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, naming Kevin O'Leary and Fox News Media as defendants.

Has a court ruled on the O'Leary and Fox News lawsuit?

No. As of July 18, 2026, no court has ruled on the claims. This is a newly filed complaint, and both O'Leary and Fox News are expected to respond and contest the allegations.