The BBC is preparing to argue Donald Trump\u2019s $10bn court case against it should be dismissed, arguing it has no case to answer over the US president\u2019s claims he was defamed by an episode of Panorama.<\/p>\n
The development comes after Trump filed a 33-page complaint to a Florida<\/a> court on Monday, accusing the broadcaster of \u201ca false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory and malicious depiction\u201d of the president in the documentary.<\/p>\n On Tuesday, the BBC<\/a> said it would defend itself over the suit. It is understood that the corporation is likely to argue that it did not have the rights to air the documentary in the US, and that the case should therefore be dismissed.<\/p>\n The move is an attempt to see the lawsuit off before litigation costs mount. It will be greeted with relief by supporters of the BBC who have argued that its editorial independence would be called into question if it sought to settle.<\/p>\n The Panorama programme, Trump: A Second Chance?, was broadcast before the 2024 US presidential election. It spliced together two parts of the January 6 speech he gave before the attack on the US Capitol that day.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s complaint argues both that the programme defamed him and that it violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. It says the broadcast caused Trump \u201cmassive economic damage to his brand value and significant damage and injury to his future financial prospects\u201d.<\/p>\n The BBC will note that audiences in the US were unable to access the show via iPlayer, the BBC\u2019s streaming platform.<\/p>\n The corporation is also arguing that Trump could not have suffered serious reputational harm from the programme because he won the presidential election. In Florida, Trump actually increased his vote share from his previous campaigns.<\/p>\n The lawsuit alleges that Florida residents may have been able to watch the programme using a virtual private network (VPN) or via the international streaming service, BritBox. The BBC has not responded directly to those claims.<\/p>\n The BBC board and lawyers are still working closely on the issue. The BBC\u2019s legal department is guiding the discussions, but the board, together with the BBC chair, Samir Shah, are understood to be closely involved.<\/p>\n The suit also claims the documentary was distributed in the US through a company called Blue Ant Media Corporation. The company is not a defendant in the case.<\/p>\n However, a spokesperson for Blue Ant Media said none of its buyers had aired the Panorama episode in the US, while the version it was distributing did not include the infamous edit, which had been cut out to make the programme shorter.<\/p>\n The timing could scarcely be worse for the BBC, as it searches for a new director general. It comes after the resignation of current director general Tim Davie and head of BBC News, Deborah Turness<\/a>, following the fallout from the Panorama edit.<\/p>\n It also comes with the government officially launching the process of renewing the BBC\u2019s charter, which will see it fundamentally re-examine whether the corporation should be part-funded by advertising or subscriptions.<\/p>\n