Show summary Hide summary
Mike Lindell has asked a federal appeals court to overturn a $2.3 million defamation judgment tied to his post-2020 election claims, arguing that his streaming platform and he are protected from liability and that the legal standard for defamation was not met. The filing, lodged Monday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, seeks to undo last year’s jury decision and could test how far internet immunity shields live-stream hosts.
What Lindell is arguing on appeal
In a detailed brief, Lindell and his media company, Frankspeech LLC, contend the verdict should be reversed for several reasons. At the center of the appeal are two legal positions: that Frankspeech qualifies for statutory immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because it merely hosted content, and that the record did not show the high bar of actual malice required for defamation claims involving matters of public concern.
June 27 horoscopes: what each sign should expect today
Woman shoots tow truck driver after trying to reclaim Lincoln during tow: police
The defendants also challenge the trial court’s treatment of statements made at a Lindell-hosted online event, arguing the jury wrongly attributed third-party remarks to the platform itself.
Case background and the jury’s findings
The suit was brought by Eric Coomer, a former Dominion Voting Systems official, after public accusations tied him to alleged election fraud. Those claims circulated widely among supporters of former President Donald Trump and were repeated on various conservative platforms.
At trial in Denver, jurors found Lindell and his streaming operation liable for defamation based largely on comments made during an August 2021 online symposium hosted by Lindell. The jury awarded Coomer $2.3 million against Lindell and Frankspeech; they cleared MyPillow, Lindell’s mattress company, of liability.
Prosecuting evidence included testimony about a Colorado podcaster and other third parties whose allegations helped spark the campaign against Coomer. The trial record also showed that one speaker at the symposium made the most direct defamatory assertions, which the jury treated as attributable to Frankspeech because the company organized and broadcasted the event.
Key points from the appeal
- Section 230 immunity: Frankspeech argues it is an interactive platform that did not create the disputed content and so should be insulated from publisher liability.
- Agency and attribution: The brief disputes the jury’s conclusion that the platform “sponsored” or acted through the speaker whose remarks were at issue.
- Actual malice: Lindell says Coomer failed to prove that statements were made knowing they were false or with reckless disregard for their truth—an essential element when public-figure standards apply.
- Appellants also fault the trial court for admitting certain evidence and for how it instructed the jury on the legal standards.
Why the outcome matters beyond the parties
The 10th Circuit’s decision could influence how courts treat live-streamed events and platforms that present third-party speakers. A ruling favoring Lindell and Frankspeech would narrow circumstances in which a host can be treated as a publisher of others’ speech; a defeat would reinforce the ability of plaintiffs to hold platforms accountable when they promote or sponsor defamatory content.
Lawyers and tech-policy experts are watching closely because the case touches on the scope of Section 230 protections, an issue that has repeatedly reached federal courts and lawmakers in recent years as social platforms grapple with moderation, amplification and liability for harm caused by hosted speech.
Next steps
The 10th Circuit will now consider the briefs and, if it schedules oral argument, hear from both sides before issuing a ruling—typically a process that takes months. Whatever the outcome, either party could seek further review from the Supreme Court, meaning the legal questions at stake may persist for years and continue to shape how online platforms and their hosts are treated under U.S. law.
