Case Intel:

• Newsmax voluntarily dismissed its antitrust claims against Fox Corp. in Florida and immediately refiled them in Wisconsin after Judge Aileen Cannon rejected the original complaint as an "impermissible shotgun pleading"
• The lawsuit alleges Fox imposes "no-carry" provisions and financial penalties to prevent distributors from carrying competing right-leaning news channels like Newsmax
• Newsmax claims Fox's anticompetitive behavior has delayed its growth for nearly a decade and cost it millions in potential revenue

USA HERALD - Newsmax Broadcasting pulled the plug on its Florida antitrust lawsuit against Fox Corp. late Thursday night, just hours before the court-imposed deadline to file an amended complaint. Instead of fixing the procedural flaws that prompted U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon to toss the case, the Boca Raton-based news network took its fight to Wisconsin federal court.

The legal maneuver came after Judge Cannon delivered a sharp rebuke of Newsmax's original September 3 filing, calling it a "shotgun pleading" — legal terminology for complaints that are so poorly structured they make it impossible for defendants to mount a proper defense.

Timeline

• September 3, 2025: Newsmax files initial antitrust lawsuit against Fox News Network LLC and Fox Corp. in Southern District of Florida
• September 5, 2025: Judge Cannon dismisses case as "impermissible shotgun pleading"
• September 11, 2025: Court-imposed deadline for amended complaint expires
• September 11, 2025: Newsmax voluntarily dismisses Florida case and refiles in Western District of Wisconsin

The new Wisconsin filing maintains Newsmax's core allegations that Fox systematically blocks competitors from cable and satellite distribution networks through anticompetitive bundling practices and exclusionary contracts.

According to the complaint filed in Wisconsin federal court (case number 3:25-cv-00770), Newsmax alleges Fox employs several tactics to maintain its dominant market position:

Explicit "No-Carry" Provisions: Fox allegedly requires distributors to agree not to carry non-Fox right-leaning news channels as part of their licensing agreements.

Financial Penalty Structure: When distributors do carry Newsmax, Fox reportedly forces them to also carry and pay premium fees for less popular Fox channels like Fox Business Network, effectively making Newsmax carriage financially prohibitive.

Contractual Barriers: The lawsuit describes "a suite of other contractual barriers" designed to prevent competitors from gaining market access.

Newsmax claims these practices violate the Sherman Antitrust Act and have cost the network nearly a decade of potential growth. "But for Fox's anticompetitive behavior, Newsmax would have achieved greater pay TV distribution, seen its audience and ratings grow sooner, gained earlier 'critical mass' for major advertisers and become, overall, a more valuable media property," the company stated in court documents.

Shotgun Pleading Doctrine: Judge Cannon's dismissal centered on a fundamental procedural flaw. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires complaints to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim." Shotgun pleadings violate this rule by incorporating all preceding allegations into successive counts, making it impossible for defendants to respond to specific claims.

"The second, third, fourth, and fifth counts in the complaint, however, incorporate all preceding allegations, thus rendering the complaint an impermissible 'shotgun pleading,'" Judge Cannon wrote in her September 5 order. She specifically required that any amended complaint avoid successive counts incorporating all prior allegations and ensure each count identifies particular legal bases with supporting factual allegations.

Antitrust Standards: Newsmax's claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act must demonstrate Fox's conduct unreasonably restrains trade in the relevant market. The company will need to prove market power, anticompetitive conduct, and resulting consumer harm — typically shown through higher prices, reduced output, or diminished choice.

Venue Shopping Strategy: By moving to Wisconsin, Newsmax argues it has stronger jurisdictional grounds, claiming its content broadcasts in the state through national and local carriage agreements, and that Fox maintains continuous business operations through license agreements and local station affiliations.

What's Next

The Wisconsin court will now determine whether Newsmax's refiled complaint meets federal pleading standards that tripped up the Florida case. Fox Corp. will have 21 days to respond once properly served.

Key procedural developments to watch:

• Fox's likely motion to dismiss on jurisdiction or failure to state a claim grounds
• Discovery timeline if the case survives initial motions
• Potential class action certification if other right-leaning networks join the litigation

Settlement discussions remain possible, particularly given the high costs of antitrust litigation and Fox's recent $787.5 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems in a separate defamation case.

Newsmax Counsel:

• Michael J. Guzman, Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick PLLC (lead counsel)
• Jennifer L. Gregor, Godfrey & Kahn SC (Wisconsin local counsel)
• Agustina Kloosterboer and Samuel J. Randall, Sperling Kenny Nachwalter LLC (Florida counsel)

Fox Corp. counsel information was not immediately available Friday.

Sources

• [Court Docket - Southern District of Florida] (case number 9:25-cv-81091)
• [Wisconsin Federal Court Filing] (case number 3:25-cv-00770)
• Judge Cannon's September 5, 2025 Order Dismissing Complaint

🛑 It should be noted that the assertions in this lawsuit are merely allegations and have not been proven in a court of law.