Fox News Anchor's Lawsuit Against ABC Gets Tossed Faster Than His Credibility
Well, well, well. If it isn't the consequences of my own actions catching up to me. In a move that has shocked absolutely no one with a functioning brain stem, a federal judge has thrown out the defamation lawsuit that Fox News anchor and professional chest-thumper Matt Gutman filed against ABC News. The suit, which was about as legally sound as a pyramid scheme run by a guy named "Chad," was dismissed with prejudice on Tuesday. That means Gutman can’t refile, appeal, or cry about it in court anymore. He can only cry about it on air, which, let’s be honest, is his natural habitat.
For those of you who somehow missed this trainwreck, here’s the TL;DR: Gutman, who apparently has the skin of a wet paper towel and the legal acumen of a goldfish, sued ABC over a report that criticized his own reporting on the disastrous 2021 Surfside condo collapse in Florida. ABC ran a segment calling out Gutman for his now-infamous claim that a local official had told him the building’s collapse was caused by a sinkhole. That claim was, to put it mildly, complete bullshit. The official never said that, and ABC’s fact-checkers did what fact-checkers do: they checked the facts. Gutman’s report was retracted, he was suspended from Fox for two weeks, and the world moved on. Except Gutman didn’t move on. He decided to sue ABC for defamation, claiming their segment painted him as a "reckless journalist" and damaged his reputation.
Oh, the horror. A reckless journalist being called a reckless journalist. Next thing you know, someone’s going to call a duck a duck and the poor thing will sue for emotional distress.
The judge’s ruling was a masterpiece of judicial shade-throwing. In her decision, U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro basically said that ABC’s segment was protected by the First Amendment because Gutman is a public figure. To win a defamation case in this country as a public figure, you have to prove "actual malice"—that the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. And here’s the kicker: Judge Ungaro ruled that ABC’s reporting was "substantially true." You know what that means? It means ABC didn’t just get a pass; they got a standing ovation from the legal system.
The court found that ABC’s segment accurately described Gutman’s reporting and the subsequent retraction. They didn’t fabricate quotes, they didn’t twist facts, and they didn’t imply anything that wasn’t already painfully obvious. They just said, "Hey, this guy reported something false and got caught." And for that, Gutman tried to sue them into oblivion. Spoiler alert: it didn’t work.
Now, let’s talk about the elephant in the room: the sheer audacity of a Fox News personality suing another network for defamation. This is the same network that has spent the last decade settling defamation lawsuits like they’re speeding tickets. Dominion Voting Systems just took them for $787 million over election lies. Smartmatic is still in line with a $2.7 billion lawsuit. And Gutman thought he had the moral high ground here? That’s like a bank robber suing a convenience store for having a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" sign. It’s technically within your rights, but you’re still the villain in this story.
Gutman’s whole career is built on a foundation of sensationalism and, let’s be real, a little bit of gaslighting. Remember when he "confirmed" that NBA star Kobe Bryant had died in a helicopter crash before the LA County coroner had officially identified the bodies? Fox News had to retract that too. The guy has a pattern: report first, verify never, and when you get caught, blame the people who pointed out you’re full of shit.
The ABC report in question was part of their "Truth and Lies" series, which is a segment designed to fact-check misinformation in the media. In June 2021, ABC’s Jon Karl and the investigative team took a deep dive into the Surfside collapse coverage and specifically highlighted Gutman’s sinkhole claim. The segment aired with a warning that Gutman’s reporting was false and that he had misled the public during a time of crisis. ABC’s defense was simple: everything we said was true, and we have receipts. The judge agreed.
You have to love how Gutman’s legal team tried to argue that calling him "reckless" was defamatory. In what world is that an insult? It’s a job description for anyone who’s ever worked in cable news. If you can’t handle being called reckless, maybe don’t run a segment where you claim a building collapsed because of a sinkhole when no one, including the city’s own engineers, had said anything remotely close to that.
The dismissal is a massive win for ABC and a massive L for Gutman, who now has to go back to his day job of pretending to be a serious journalist while his network pays off its own legal debts. But this isn’t just about Gutman. This is about the broader issue of media accountability. In an era where misinformation spreads like wildfire, the fact that a court just ruled that you can’t sue your way out of being fact-checked is a huge deal. ABC didn’t just win a lawsuit; they won a precedent. They established that journalists can call out other journalists for being wrong without fearing a SLAPP-style lawsuit designed to silence criticism.
Gutman’s lawsuit was nothing more than a legal temper tantrum. He didn’t have a case, and he had to know it. But he filed it anyway, hoping that the sheer cost of litigation would make ABC back down. That’s the classic move of a bully who’s used to getting his way. But this time, the bully got punched in the mouth, and the judge was the one throwing the haymaker.
So, what’
Final Thoughts
As a journalist, the dismissal of Matt Gutman’s lawsuit isn’t just a legal footnote—it’s a stark reminder that even the most aggressive reporting must bow to the cold, hard evidence of what was actually broadcast, not what a source claims was edited out. The court’s ruling reinforces a brutal industry truth: your reputation can be shredded in a headline, but unless you can prove malice and falsity with receipts, the First Amendment shield remains impenetrable. The real takeaway for the newsroom is less about Gutman’s specific grievance and more about the uncomfortable precedent—that public figures are increasingly turning to defamation suits not to win, but to bleed the media dry in discovery.