Donald Trump has confirmed he plans to sue the BBC for between $1bn and $5bn over the editing of his speech in a Panorama news programme.
The corporation said it was an “error of judgement” to splice two sections of his speech together, and the programme will “not be broadcast again in this form on any BBC platforms”.
“We have to do it, they’ve even admitted that they cheated,” the US president told reporters overnight on Saturday.
“Not that they couldn’t have not done that. They cheated. They changed the words coming out of my mouth.”
However, the lawsuit will not be easy, according to three experts who have spoken to Sky News.
“Filing a lawsuit is easy,” said Mark Stevens, media law solicitor at Howard Kennedy, to Sky presenter Samantha Washington.
“Winning one is, in this case, like trying to lasso a tornado: technically possible, but you’re going to need more than a cowboy hat.”
So why would this case be so hard to win?
Where did the damage occur?
The Panorama episode was not aired in the US, which may make Mr Trump’s case harder.
“For a libel claim to succeed, harm must occur where the case is brought,” said Mr Stevens.
“It’s hard to argue [for] that reputational damage in a jurisdiction where the content wasn’t aired.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
The president will also have to show that his reputation suffered actual harm.
“But his reputation was pretty damaged on this issue before,” said Mr Stevens.
“There have been judicial findings, congressional hearings, global media coverage around 6 January. Laying that responsibility for any further harm at the door of the BBC seems pretty tenuous.”
Was the mistake malicious?
In order to sue someone for libel in the US, you have to prove they did it on purpose – or with ‘malicious intent’.
That might be hard to prove, according to Alan Rusbridger, editor of Prospect magazine and former editor-in-chief of the Guardian.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
“I just don’t think that he can do that,” he said.
Since 1964, US public officials have had to prove that what was said against them was made with “knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth”.
“The reason for that, when the Supreme Court passed this in 1964, is the chilling effect on journalism,” said Mr Rusbridger.
“If a journalist makes a mistake, [and] this clearly was a mistake, if that ends up with their employers having to pay $1bn, $2bn, $3bn, that would be a dreadful chill on journalism.
“Unless Trump can prove that whoever this was who was editing this film did it with malice, the case is open and shut.”
Read more US news:
‘Earthquake in Team MAGA’ as Trump ally turns enemy
Prison staff fired after leaking Maxwell’s emails, says lawyer
Is he suing for too much money?
Mr Trump says he’s going to sue for between $1bn and $5bn, figures former BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman described as “very fanciful”.
“That, I think, is very fanciful because he will have to show that he has suffered billions of dollars worth of reputational damage.
“We know that this was back in 2020 when the speech was made. He went on to be successful in business and, of course, to be re-elected as US president.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
However, Mr Coleman did suggest the BBC should try to “bring this to an end as speedily as possible”.
“Litigation is always a commercial decision and it’s a reputational decision,” he said.
“The legal processes towards a court case are long and arduous and this is going to blow up in the news pretty regularly between now and then.”
Other news organisations facing litigation by Mr Trump have settled out of court for “sums like $15m, $16m”, according to Mr Coleman.
