By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Donald Trump amended his lawsuit against CBS, increasing his damage claim to $20 billion and adding a claim of unfair competition, alleging deceptive editing of a Kamala Harris interview cost his media company viewership and revenue. The amended complaint, filed in Texas federal court, now includes Representative Ronny Jackson as a plaintiff to address forum-shopping arguments. Trump claims CBS’s edits constituted false advertising under both state and federal law, impacting Truth Social engagement. CBS maintains that the edits were for time constraints and that the lawsuit is an attack on editorial judgment protected by the First Amendment.
Read the original article here
Donald Trump has amended his lawsuit against CBS, escalating his claim to a staggering $20 billion. The amended suit now alleges that a ‘60 Minutes’ interview featuring Vice President Kamala Harris unfairly diverted viewers from his Truth Social platform, causing him significant financial harm. This dramatic increase in his demanded compensation reflects a clear escalation of his initial claim, showcasing the magnitude of his perceived grievance.
This amended lawsuit represents a bold, if not audacious, move. Trump’s argument rests on the premise that the Harris interview, by virtue of its prominence on a major network, directly impacted the viewership of his own platform. He is effectively claiming that CBS actively and intentionally undermined his business interests. The sheer size of the monetary demand – $20 billion – underscores the gravity with which he views this alleged transgression.
The lawsuit’s merit is certainly questionable. The assertion that a highly-rated news program on a major network somehow constitutes unfair competition against a relatively small, niche social media platform seems tenuous at best. There’s little evidence to support a direct causal link between the ‘60 Minutes’ interview and a supposed loss of users or revenue for Truth Social. In fact, many would argue that the platform’s low popularity is primarily due to factors unrelated to CBS’s programming.
The claim is further complicated by the inherent nature of media consumption. Viewers are not monolithic; their choices are driven by diverse factors, making it difficult to establish a direct line of causation between one program and another. Furthermore, attributing a specific financial loss to such an indirect influence would be incredibly challenging to prove in court. It seems more likely this is a publicity stunt than a genuine legal pursuit.
The $20 billion figure itself raises eyebrows. It’s an exorbitant sum, seemingly designed not just to compensate for alleged losses, but to exert significant pressure on CBS. One could interpret this as an attempt at intimidation, an attempt to leverage the lawsuit for reasons beyond a simple financial settlement. The enormous sum suggests the lawsuit might be more about making a point than about achieving any realistic financial compensation.
This action also reveals a pattern in Trump’s behaviour: a tendency to use lawsuits as a tool for personal and political retribution. The lawsuit appears to be motivated less by a legitimate legal grievance and more by a desire to retaliate against what he perceives as a slight or criticism. This approach to conflict resolution has characterized many of his past actions, raising questions about its effectiveness and its implications for the legal system.
Ultimately, the success of this amended lawsuit is highly doubtful. The burden of proof lies with Trump to demonstrate a direct and quantifiable connection between the Harris interview and the financial performance of Truth Social. Given the complexity of media consumption and the lack of readily apparent causality, this seems a very challenging task. It is likely the case will face significant legal hurdles, and it remains to be seen how a court will respond to such a bold and potentially frivolous claim. The sheer audacity of the $20 billion demand, however, ensures this story will continue to generate headlines and fuel public discussion, regardless of the eventual outcome in court.
This episode highlights not only Trump’s aggressive legal strategy but also the broader challenges faced by media outlets in navigating their relationship with powerful figures who are quick to resort to litigation. The potential chilling effect of such lawsuits on journalistic freedom and the ongoing debate surrounding free speech versus responsibility will likely be central points of further discussions following this amended complaint.