Attorneys for CBS requested a federal judge in Texas on Friday to dismiss President-elect Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the mainstream American broadcaster for engaging in unfair trade practices over a 60-minute edited interview with Vice President Kamala Harris.
On Halloween, Trump filed the 19-page lawsuit, alleging that the broadcast material was intentionally altered to mislead, confuse, and defraud the public and to tilt the scales in favor of Democrats. He compared this to election and voter meddling through significant, malicious, and deceptive news distortion.
CBS argues in the 33-page request to dismiss that because Trump won the November presidential election, there is no longer a case or issue. Additionally, according to the motion, Trump never made any allegations that were adequate to justify the lawsuit under Lone Star State law.
The Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act is one of the state’s several long-standing consumer protection legislation.
Before being severely undermined by the Republican-controlled state legislature in 2017 as a result of intense lobbying by the insurance industry, the DTPA was thought to be one of the most active consumer protection laws in the nation.
The pertinent section of the law under the heading DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES UNLAWFUL is as follows:
The contested program had nothing to do with a commercial solicitation, the CBS motion stated.
According to the application, the DTPA was not created to regulate editorial choices made by news organizations that one disagrees with, but rather to shield Texas consumers involved in business transactions from dishonest, misleading, and deceptive business practices. Under the DTPA, President Trump has no legal standing.
The one thing President Trump ought to have said—but didn’t—was that he was duped into signing a business deal by 60 Minutes’ editing.
The move to dismiss combines the conservative standing doctrine with an attack on the lawsuit’s merits.
The conservative standing theory is a term frequently used by legal scholars to describe contemporary Article III jurisprudence. Conservative judges who aimed to restrict the application and reach of constitutional remedy created this legal doctrine in two cases from the 1920s.
To put it another way, the standing concept was established to stop people from suing the government for alleged rights abuses.
Despite being procedural in nature, standing arguments in a dispute are based on facts rather than underlying reasoning.
According to CBS, Trump’s triumph has deprived the court of any Article III jurisdiction, and Trump’s complaint about the network did not adequately demonstrate any genuine harm.
The argument argues that President Trump’s numerous attempts to claim harm are too broad and speculative to grant standing. A public editor is not a town square, a faculty lounge, or a legislative assembly, any more than a federal court is.
The assertion made by President Trump that CBS went too far in editing the interview does not amount to a specific, tangible injury. Additionally, President Trump’s assertion that he represents every Texas voter or that the public was misled simply serves to highlight how broad his case is and how he lacks Article III standing.
Additionally, CBS lawyers assert that Trump has no DTPA standing.
At length, based on the motion:
According to the petition, President Trump makes no claims in the Complaint that he really bought or leased any CBS services, or if he did, when, where, or how he did it. President Trump lacks standing to file the DTPA claim here as he doesn’t provide any specific complaints to back up [his] purported consumer status.
According to CBS, the disputed interview’s editing was honest and covered topics of the highest public importance.
According to the motion, CBS cannot be held accountable for editorial decisions the President disagrees with because of the First Amendment.
Additionally, if the court grants the plaintiff a lenient interpretation of the consumer protection legislation, the network warns Matthew Kacsmaryk, the U.S. District Judge selected by Trump.
The proposed amendment claims that, in President Trump’s view, the DTPA would be used as a tool by any politician to contest unfavorable media coverage. The DTPA has never been applied so extensively, and the alleged events in this case do not fall under its purview.
Source
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!
