Fox Wins Lawsuit Against Tarlov Brought by Hunter Biden Whistleblower

A federal judge in New York has dismissed a $30 million defamation lawsuit filed by Tony Bobulinski against Fox News co-host Jessica Tarlov, ruling in favor of the network personality and ordering Bobulinski to cover her legal expenses.

U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken granted Tarlov’s motion to dismiss the suit on the grounds that it failed to state a valid legal claim. He also awarded attorney’s fees under New York’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law, which is designed to protect individuals from frivolous lawsuits intended to silence free speech.

“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,” Judge Oetken wrote in his decision. “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.”

A Fox News spokesperson responded to the ruling by 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.”

Background of the Lawsuit

Bobulinski, a former business associate of Hunter Biden, filed the lawsuit in March 2024 following comments Tarlov made on The Five, a widely watched Fox News program. During a segment with Judge Jeanine Pirro in January, Tarlov said, “Okay, a Trump Super PAC paid for Tony Bobulinski’s lawyers’ fees.”

The following day, Bobulinski’s attorney, Jesse Binall, sent a letter to Fox Corp. demanding an on-air retraction and formal apology, stating that failure to comply would result in immediate legal action.

Tarlov addressed the matter during a later broadcast, offering clarification: “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.”

Despite the clarification, Binall issued another letter demanding a full retraction and further apology. Fox News responded firmly, stating, “Her correction was accurate, and we will not be issuing any further correction.”

Bobulinski Sues for $30 Million

Bobulinski moved forward with legal action, seeking $30 million in damages, claiming the statements had harmed his reputation and caused professional and personal losses. The lawsuit requested compensatory, special, and punitive damages, along with attorney’s fees.

Fox News again defended Tarlov, asserting that she had corrected her earlier statement appropriately and clarified that she had no evidence suggesting the Trump PAC payments were linked to Bobulinski’s legal expenses.

“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,” a network spokesperson said at the time. “We will vigorously defend against these baseless claims.”

Judge’s Final Ruling

In his ruling, Judge Oetken rejected Bobulinski’s arguments across the board. The court determined that Tarlov’s comments did not meet the legal standards for defamation under New York law.

“Bobulinski also fails to adequately allege that Tarlov’s statements tended to injure him in his capacity as a businessman,” the judge noted. He cited precedent from the New York Court of Appeals, stating that for a statement to qualify as defamation per se under professional conduct exceptions, it must specifically reference behavior incompatible with the person’s profession, not merely reflect poorly on their character.

A Landmark Decision Under Anti-SLAPP Law

This case is notable not only for its high-profile nature but also because it marks the first time a federal court has awarded attorney’s fees under New York’s strengthened anti-SLAPP law. The statute is designed to discourage lawsuits that aim to silence critics or retaliate against public commentary.

Legal experts believe the ruling could set a precedent for future cases involving media personalities and public figures, reinforcing protections for free speech and opinion in the public sphere.