Categories
Health

Drug Distributors and J.&J. Attain $26 Billion Deal to Finish Opioids Lawsuits

After two years of wrangling, the country’s three major drug distributors and a pharmaceutical giant have reached a $26 billion deal with states that would release some of the biggest companies in the industry from all legal liability in the opioid epidemic, a decades-long public health crisis that has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.

The announcement was made Wednesday afternoon by a bipartisan group of state attorneys general.

The offer will now go out to every state and municipality in the country for approval. If enough of them formally sign on to it, billions of dollars from the companies could begin to be released to help communities pay for addiction treatment and prevention services and other steep financial costs of the epidemic.

In return, the states and cities would drop thousands of lawsuits against the companies and pledge not to bring any future action.

The settlement binds only these four companies — the drug distributors Cardinal Health, AmerisourceBergen, McKesson, and Johnson & Johnson — leaving thousands of other lawsuits against many other pharmaceutical defendants, including manufacturers and drugstore chains, in the mammoth nationwide litigation still unresolved.

But these four companies are widely seen as among the defendants with the deepest pockets.

In an emailed statement, Michael Ullmann, executive vice president and general counsel of Johnson & Johnson, said: “We recognize the opioid crisis is a tremendously complex public health issue, and we have deep sympathy for everyone affected. This settlement will directly support state and local efforts to make meaningful progress in addressing the opioid crisis in the United States.”

In a joint statement, the three distributors said: “While the companies strongly dispute the allegations made in these lawsuits, they believe the proposed settlement agreement and settlement process it establishes are important steps toward achieving broad resolution of governmental opioid claims and delivering meaningful relief to communities across the United States.”

The distributors, which by law are supposed to monitor quantities of prescription drug shipments, have been accused of turning a blind eye for two decades while pharmacies across the country ordered millions of pills for their communities. Plaintiffs also allege that Johnson & Johnson, which used to contract with poppy growers in Tasmania to supply opioid materials to manufacturers and made its own fentanyl patches for pain patients, downplayed addictive properties to doctors as well as patients.

According to federal data, from 1999 to 2019, 500,000 people died from overdoses to prescription and street opioids. Overdose deaths from opioids hit a record high in 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said earlier this month.

Under the agreement, the country’s three distributors would make payments over 18 years. Johnson & Johnson would pay $5 billion over nine years. A key feature of the agreement is that the distributors would establish an independent clearinghouse to track and report one another’s shipments, a new and unusual mechanism intended to make data transparent and send up red flags immediately when outsized orders are made.

A separate deal between the companies and Native American tribes is still being negotiated.

The agreement was presented by attorneys general from North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware, Louisiana, Tennessee and Connecticut.

Wednesday’s announcement suggests that a critical element — a large majority of states agreeing in principle — has been met. But there are daunting obstacles remaining before any checks are actually cut.

The states and the District of Columbia will now have 30 days to closely review the agreement, including how much each would be paid over 17 years. Many states have not yet had the chance to scrutinize the deal. And while many permit their attorneys general to sign off, others require that legislators must be consulted. An unspecified number of states must sign on, for the deal to proceed. If that threshold is not met, the companies could walk away.

While the states are deciding, a trial brought by several California counties in state court against Johnson & Johnson and a local West Virginia trial in federal court against the distributors will continue.

States also have to begin cajoling their localities, including those that have already filed cases and those that have not, to agree to the deal. The greater the number of local governments that sign on, the greater the amount of money each state will receive.

“The lawyers will do a lot of the strong-arming of their clients, the localities, into agreeing to the settlements, because if the deal doesn’t go through, the lawyers won’t get paid,” said Elizabeth Burch, a law professor at the University of Georgia who has followed the litigation closely.

Categories
Business

Insurers brace for lawsuits as staff return to the workplace

As U.S. corporations bring workers back to the office, major insurers like Chubb, AIG, and Travelers brace themselves for an onslaught of claims related to labor and labor lawsuits.

According to Jackson Lewis, a law firm and employment law firm tracking these numbers, litigation and complaints related to Covid have steadily increased during the pandemic, with California and New Jersey receiving the most filings.

Experts say it is likely to increase as the courts wade through a backlog of cases and government agencies deal with pent-up claims.

“Employment practice liability insurers are very much aware of the additional claims activity that has not yet occurred,” said Kelly Thoerig, a US director of liability insurance for Marsh McLennan consultancy.

Employers are walking a tightrope when it comes to organizing a return to work that carries liability and risk, she said.

Three important things employers need to consider to protect themselves from litigation:

Who will return to work?

Management needs to assess whether they are discriminating against protected classes of employees when deciding who to bring back to the office first.

“Who did you let go of? Who did you send home?” she said, going through a list of critical questions. “Who comes first to be allowed to come back? Or who do you have to come back?”

Ensuring a safe job

When employees come back, companies need to make sure it’s a safe environment. This raises additional questions about whether workers should wear masks or whether a company should need Covd-19 vaccination.

While it is legal for employers to prescribe vaccines for workers, it may not be advisable, Thoerig said. This is partly due to “downstream liability when a person has a serious reaction to the vaccine or has complications because of the vaccine,” she said.

On the other hand, some employees or customers may require companies to have vaccines.

“This presents different but very real business and legal concerns to employers: are they doing enough to protect their employees and customers?” Said Frank Alvarez, co-director of the Jackson Lewis Disability, Vacation and Health Management practice. “Are they addressing privacy concerns, employee medical choices, and the balancing issues of employee relationships between those who are vaccinated and those who are not?”

Thoerig said she urged her customers to use incentives to persuade resistant employees to get the vaccine.

For example, Wynn Resorts is calling for weekly Covid-19 tests with negative results for its employees who have not been vaccinated. This gives an employee an incentive to get a chance.

Requests for accommodation

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission data shows a surge in disability discrimination claims filed with the agency dealing with the pandemic.

Insurer Travelers suspects that housing conflicts are driving the increase. For example, when an employee asks about the possibility of being able to continue working from home because they have an illness that puts them at increased risk if they contract Covid-19. If the request is denied, the representative can request accommodation.

This situation can also occur if a staff member states that she cannot take the vaccine because of an allergy. If the employer says it anyway, she can say that her employer discriminated against her because of it.

“The idea that certain people or groups of people or even individual employees are preferred or disadvantaged over others should immediately give cause for concern,” said Thoerig.

Since employees are being called back to the office in greater numbers, they could also have a strong argument, said Thoerig.

“We’ve been effectively doing our work from our home office, from our basement, for the past 12-14 months. And why isn’t this a decent place to stay when I’ve been as productive as I was from home?” She said.

Thoerig has advised customers to be as flexible as possible when applying for accommodation.

“Employers are trying very hard to reconcile all of these considerations,” said Alvarez. “The business world has never faced a situation where the law is so uncoordinated and gives so little indication of potential legal risks.”

Categories
Health

Purdue Pharma Provides Plan to Finish Sackler Management and Mounting Lawsuits

In a message marking the beginning of the end of the most notorious prescription opioid maker in the country, Purdue Pharma unveiled its bankruptcy restructuring plan just before midnight on Monday. The blueprint requires members of the billionaire Sackler family to give up control of the company and transform it into a new business whose revenues are solely aimed at alleviating the addiction epidemic that caused its signature pain reliever, OxyContin.

The 300-page plan is the company’s formal offer to end thousands of lawsuits and includes the Sacklers pledge to pay $ 4.275 billion out of their personal assets – an additional $ 1.3 billion than their original offer – to reimburse states, communities, tribes and other plaintiffs for the costs associated with the epidemic.

If the plan is approved by a majority of the company’s creditors and Judge Robert D. Drain of Federal Bankruptcy Court in White Plains, NY, payments will flow into three buckets: one to compensate individual plaintiffs, such as families whose relatives have overdosed , or legal guardians of infants with newborn abstinence syndrome as well as hospitals and insurers; another for tribes; and the third – and largest – for state and local governments devastated by the cost of a drug epidemic that only worsened during the Covid-19 pandemic.

“With drug overdose still at record levels, it is time to use Purdue’s fortune to help tackle the crisis,” said Steve Miller, chairman of the Purdue board of directors, in a statement. “We are confident that this plan will achieve this important goal. ”

It remains to be seen whether the plan will be adopted. Since the company filed for bankruptcy in 2019, 24 states and the District of Columbia have denounced it, arguing that the lawsuit would preclude their ability to take legal action directly against individual Sackler family members who they consider to be inadequate contributions.

Although some details of the settlement terms are still being worked out, Purdue officials said the Sacklers would not be exempt from criminal investigations that could be launched by a handful of states for violating consumer protection laws. However, the plan exempts them from further civil litigation.

The new application, filed minutes before a court-set deadline, marks a milestone in Purdue’s long, troubled history as the maker and marketer of OxyContin, the prescription pain reliever that has become addicting hundreds of thousands of people. Federal and state agencies spent years trying to curb Purdue’s marketing tactics. In 2007, the Justice Department reached an agreement with Purdue and top executives on $ 634.5 million to resolve criminal charges related to its marketing practices.

As of 2015, when the opioid epidemic hit the country, the lawsuit engulfed cities, counties, states, tribes, families, hospitals and insurers, drug distributors, pharmacies and manufacturers, including Purdue boss. The cases almost consistently claim that OxyContin helped lay the foundation for the prescription and illicit drug addiction epidemic that killed more than 400,000 people over 20 years.

To halt the growing civil lawsuit that cost Purdue $ 2 million a week in legal costs, the company filed for bankruptcy protection in 2019.

The legal dispute before a federal court against other companies continues.

The biggest difference between Purdue’s earlier proposals and this latest plan is that the Sacklers increased their payments by $ 1.3 billion and extended their payment schedule by an additional two years (from seven to nine).

Another notable change concerns control of the new company. The original 2019 proposal called for it to be monitored by state-appointed officials. The restructuring plan now describes it as a private company run by independent managers selected by the states and local governments that sued Purdue. The largest groups of applicants – tribes and the government – own the company and would ensure that the proceeds are used solely for crisis management programs.

The company’s managers could sell to private owners by 2024, but those owners would also be bound by the same rules of conduct and income directions.

As it worked its way through the bankruptcy process, Purdue pleaded guilty in November of fraud against health officials and violating anti-kickback laws.

Individual members of the Sackler family agreed to pay the federal government civil fines of $ 225 million, but said in a statement that they “acted ethically and lawfully.” Although the Sacklers were not charged, the Justice Department reserves the right to file criminal charges later.

A key goal of the new Purdue plan is to install guard rails to ensure that settlement money is used to alleviate the epidemic, rather than being paid out more generally to cover budget constraints. Such payouts were a major criticism of the 1998 settlement that ended widespread legal disputes against the large tobacco companies that opioid disputes are sometimes compared to.

During the bankruptcy negotiations, pushed forward by the creditors, the company suggested in its plan that the payouts comply with the latest public health principles signed by at least two dozen major medical, drug policy, and academic institutions, and attention to drug prevention, youth education, and race set up justice and transparency.

Tens of thousands of parties vote on the plan. Confirmation hearings will follow and completion is expected in a few months. Since bankruptcy proceedings began 18 months ago, leaders of a large community bloc have signaled their support, as have 24 states.

Lloyd B. Miller, who represents numerous tribes including the Navajo Nation, said his customers were on board.

“It is critical that more funds go to the treatment of opioids in tribal communities, all the more given the extraordinary devastation tribes have suffered during the Covid pandemic,” he said.

But since 2019, when Purdue filed for bankruptcy, 24 other states – some controlled by Democrats, others by Republicans – and the District of Columbia have declined to take the move, finding that Purdue has continued to benefit from its OxyContin sales.

Maura Healey, the Massachusetts attorney general who was the first to sued individual members of the Sackler family, alleged that Sackler payments under this scheme would come from their investment returns rather than capital.

“The Sacklers became billionaires by causing national tragedy,” Ms. Healey said in a statement. “They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with paying a fraction of their investment returns over the next nine years and walking away richer than they are today.”

Opposing state attorneys general said the plan, while an improvement on previous proposals, still found it disappointing for several reasons. Among them, the plan should be amended to “achieve a speedy and orderly liquidation of the company that does not involve unduly states and other creditors”.

Two branches of the Sackler family – heirs to two brothers who founded the company – said: “Today is an important step in helping addicts and we hope that this proposed resolution signals the beginning of a far-reaching development. Make an effort to provide help where it is needed. “

The oldest brother, Dr. Arthur Sackler, sold his shares before OxyContin was launched, and his relatives are not part of the litigation.

A forensic review of the Sacklers’ finances commissioned by Purdue as part of bankruptcy investigations found that the family made more than $ 10 billion from the company from 2008 to 2017. Family lawyers said the full amount was illiquid: more than half went into taxes and investments in companies sold under the bankruptcy agreement.

Although states and other creditor blocs have protested vigorously against elements of the plan for the last 18 months, many factors seem to favor the likelihood of approval: the length of the litigation, the exorbitant costs for all parties, the urgency of the worsening opioid crisis, and the general depletion of public health resources due to the coronavirus pandemic.

The new company would continue to sell OxyContin, a pain reliever that is still approved by the Food and Drug Administration in limited circumstances. But it would diversify its products to include generics and a drug used to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, as well as new drugs to reverse overdose and treat addiction to be marketed as a public health initiative on a nonprofit basis.

Categories
Business

Robinhood is dealing with almost 50 lawsuits over GameStop frenzy.

Robinhood, the broker of choice for legions of online day traders, is in talks with securities regulators and other agencies on a number of matters, including the surge in GameStop and other so-called meme stocks last month.

The company announced in a regulatory filing on Friday that it had received requests for information from federal prosecutors, the Securities and Exchange Commission, various attorneys general, and other financial regulators regarding its decision to restrict trading in stocks, including GameStop, last month.

The filing also states that the financial industry regulator known as Finra and the SEC are investigating the company’s options trading platform and how it displays information about options trading and cash positions to its clients. Robinhood has been criticized since the death of Alexander Kearns, a 20-year-old who killed himself for believing he suffered more than $ 700,000 in losses, according to its app, its information indicates. Mr. Kearns’ family has filed an unlawful death lawsuit against the agent.

Robinhood, a privately held company with funding from several Silicon Valley companies, also announced other investigations, including an investigation by Finra into a March 2020 outage that prevented some customers from accessing the company’s online trading platform and its mobile app to access the great market volatility as a result of the coronavirus.

Robinhood has become popular with quick-fingered retail investors and day traders in recent years as there are no commissions charged on trades. However, last year it settled a dispute with the SEC over disclosing to customers about the way it made money.

The company said it faces at least four potential class action lawsuits for disclosing the fees it receives from other companies.

This source of income – known as payment for the flow of orders – caught the attention of disgruntled users after Robinhood last month restricted trading in GameStop and other stocks that got into a retail frenzy that temporarily skyrocketed video game retailers’ stocks let.

In the regulatory filing, Robinhood announced that there are at least “46 alleged class actions and three individual lawsuits” over the trade restrictions.

Categories
Business

Lawsuits Take the Lead in Struggle Towards Disinformation

In an example cited in Smartmatic’s 276-page complaint, Mr Dobbs’ program broadcast a false claim from Ms. Powell that Hugo Chávez, the former president of Venezuela, was involved in developing the company’s technology and software installed so that votes could be cast could be switched undetected. (Mr. Chávez, who died in 2013, had nothing to do with Smartmatic.)

Smartmatic also cited an episode of “Lou Dobbs Tonight” in which Mr. Giuliani falsely labeled the election “stolen” and claimed that hundreds of thousands of “illegal ballots” had been found. Mr Dobbs described the election as the end of “four and a half years of efforts to overthrow the President of the United States” and the specter of outside interference arose.

“It feels like a cover-up in certain places, you know – the servers in foreign countries, private companies,” Dobbs said.

Fox has promised to fight the lawsuit. “We are proud of our 2020 election coverage and will vigorously defend this unfounded lawsuit in court,” the network said in a statement the day before Mr Dobbs’ show canceled.

Conservative media executives argue that Smartmatic’s lawsuit raises nasty questions about how news organizations should portray public figures: Ms. Powell was a conspirator, but she was also the president’s attorney. Should a media company be allowed to transfer their rights?

“This creates a new standard that is very dangerous for all cable channels,” said Christopher Ruddy, owner of Newsmax and Trump confidante, in an interview on Saturday. “You have to scrutinize everything that public figures say and what they say could be viewed as defamatory.” Mr Ruddy claims that Newsmax presented a fair picture of allegations of election fraud and voting technology companies.

However, Newsmax employees have been made aware of the potential harm stemming from allegations that surfaced on their shows. In an extraordinary on-air moment on Tuesday, Mike Lindell, the founder of MyPillow and a staunch ally of Trump, began attacking Dominion – and was immediately cut off by a Newsmax anchor, Bob Sellers, who read a formal statement that Newsmax the election had accepted results “as legal and final.”

Categories
Politics

Supreme Court docket refuses fast motion on last-ditch Trump election lawsuits

People listen to the speakers during a Stop the Steal rally outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday, January 5, 2021 in Washington, DC.

Kent Nishimura | Los Angeles Times | Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected efforts by President Donald Trump and his allies to get the court to quickly review the challenges to President-elect Joe Biden’s election victory in the November election. The move effectively closed the door on the president’s final legal strategy to undo his defeat.

The court released an order in the morning denying expedited examination of lawsuits filed by Trump’s campaign against election process in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Similarly, it denied motions by conservative conspiracy theorists L. Lin Wood and Sidney Powell to expedite the contest of the Michigan and Georgia elections, as well as other lawsuits filed by Trump supporters.

The court’s action was widely awaited and was not accompanied by any statement or opinion, as is typical of such denials. No dissenting views were found by any of the court’s nine judges.

The court could theoretically still agree to accept cases related to the election, but would likely not hear arguments until October, well into Biden’s first year in office.

The judges returned from their winter break to meet for a private conference on Friday. The order list released on Monday is the first since the DC uprising last week, in which a crowd of Trump supporters tried to delay the confirmation of Biden’s victory over Trump in the electoral college.

The court had made it clear that it would not process the cases on the schedule Trump requested, even before the order was given.

In Trump v Boockvar, one of the cases that challenged the Pennsylvania election process, President’s attorney John Eastman wrote a December letter urging the court to open the case before January 6, when Congress met to complete the election college record.

Eastman wrote that if the court does not act before January 20, when Biden is inaugurated, “it will be impossible to fix the election results,” including the alleged ballots that were illegally cast under rules approved by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court were.

Trump has furiously denied his loss to Biden in a way unprecedented in modern US history.

On Monday, the Democrats unveiled an impeachment article in the House of Representatives based on his actions at a rally prior to the siege of the Capitol. He urged supporters to “fight” and his attorney, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, called for “trial” by fight. “

Among the legal challenges the Supreme Court did not want to hasten to include was a challenge to the Electoral Count Act by Kelli Ward, leader of the Republican Party of Arizona; a challenge from Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., to apologize without an apology for the mail-in vote in his state; and two conspiracy theoretic complaints from ex-Trump attorney Powell about the elections in Michigan and Georgia.

Powell, who has falsely claimed, among other things, that the late Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez was involved in a conspiracy to rig the 2020 competition, was presented with a 1.3 defamation suit on Friday by Dominion Voting Systems, a supplier of voting machines Billions of dollars occupied. The attorney, whom Trump reportedly cited as a potential special adviser to investigate electoral fraud, has not returned CNBC’s requests for comment.

Wood and Powell suspended their Twitter accounts last week while cracking down on the spread of lies related to the QAnon conspiracy theory.

The court also declined to expedite three cases filed by the Trump campaign – two contesting mail-in voting rules in Wisconsin and one contesting easing rules in Pennsylvania. These lawsuits argued that the changed rules increased the likelihood of election fraud.

While Trump has made an unfounded argument that there was widespread electoral fraud in the 2020 election, his Justice Department has stated that there is no evidence to support such claims. The Department of Homeland Security also denied claims that the elections were infiltrated by foreign governments.

The Supreme Court previously dismissed a number of election challenges, including earlier versions of some of the lawsuits it had dismissed for a quick review on Monday. In one of its most famous cases, the court dismissed a Texas state lawsuit in December aimed at undoing Biden’s victories in swing states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

More than a dozen states and 120 GOP congressmen backed the Texas advance at the time. House spokeswoman Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Called the lawsuit “electoral subversion that threatens our democracy”.

The Supreme Court rejection marks a coda for Trump’s long-standing hope that he can play the elections through the courts.

Ahead of Election Day, Trump predicted the Supreme Court would rule the competition and urged the Senate to bank his third candidate, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, in time.

During Barrett’s confirmation process, Democrats warned that the Conservative former federal appeals judge would side with the president who appointed them. Barrett refused to apologize on election cases but said she would take the concerns seriously as she weighed whether to do so.

Trump and his allies have lost more than 60 election lawsuits in court, according to a record by Democratic electoral lawyer Marc Elias.

The Trump campaign and the Biden transition team did not immediately return requests for comment.

Categories
Politics

Dominion Voting warns Fox Information lawsuits are imminent

Complaints are coming.

Dominion Voting Systems, one of the targets of President Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about the election he lost, has warned Fox News, great Fox figures, other conservative media outlets, radio host Rush Limbaugh, and conservative attorneys that libel disputes are against them ” imminent. “

The voting machine company this week sent 21 letters to the White House, Fox News, its hosts Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, Newsmax news outlets, One America News Network, Epoch Times, and others calling for no defamation Make more claims on Dominion and that they are keeping any documents they have regarding the company.

“We are writing to formally indicate that litigation regarding these issues is imminent,” wrote Dominion attorneys Thomas Clare and Megan Meier in one of the letters to CNBC to Fox News Media General Counsel Lily Fu Claffee .

In their letters to individual news presenters, including Bartiromo, a former CNBC employee, the attorneys called for “no more defamatory claims against Dominion” and said they had “introduced and further introduced” the advocates of this misinformation campaign against. the Company.

Others who have received similar letters warning of impending litigation and requests for document retention include Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani; L. Lin Wood, attorney who questioned Georgia presidential election results, and Newsmax host Greg Kelly.

A Fox News spokeswoman pointed out two segments that aired on Fox News last month. In one case, a Dominion spokesman told host Eric Shawn that no significant electronic fraud or tampering with the company’s voting machine had occurred and that Trump’s claims about the company were false. The spokesman noted that the machines’ printed ballots matched the electronic numbers.

In the second segment, host Tucker Carlson elaborated on his staff’s efforts to get former federal attorney Sidney Powell, who was on Trump’s campaign team at the time, to substantiate their controversial claims about Dominion.

“But she never sent us evidence despite many polite inquiries,” said Carlson in the segment.

The spokespersons for the other objectives of the Dominion legal letters did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

During an interview on Thursday on CNN, Dominion CEO John Poulos said the company would take legal action against several people who “promote and reinforce those lies … on various media platforms since election day”.

“We will not overlook anyone,” said Poulos when asked if the company would sue Trump.

Trump has made a number of false claims since losing the national referendum to Joe Biden by more than 7 million votes to argue that he won the election by a landslide and that the ballot papers for him were fraudulently suppressed while the votes were being held for Biden were artificially added in a handful of states where the results were particularly close.

On November 12, just nine days after election day, Trump tweeted a claim that “DOMINION DELETED 2.7 MILLION TRUMP VOTES NATIONWIDE”.

One of the most ardent proponents of the Dominion conspiracy theories was Powell, who last month was fired from the team of lawyers working on Trump’s campaign to overturn Biden’s victory because her extreme claims were widely criticized. Since last week, Powell has met with Trump at least once and has visited the White House three times in connection with her efforts.

Dominion attorneys have also sent Powell a letter warning them of libel claims.

In his interview with CNN, Poulos said Powell’s allegations that his company’s voting machine contains software developed “at the direction” of the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a boogeyman for right-wing media outlets, and that Dominion has ties to the Clinton Foundation and George has Soros are “complete lies”.

Dominion’s director of security, Eric Coomer, sued the Trump campaign, Giuliani, Powell and a range of conservative media outlets.

Coomer’s lawsuit alleges that he has been the target of death threats and other harmful communications because of the defendants’ false claims about Dominion’s machines.

Dominion said on its website that “disinformation” about the company poses a threat to democracy.

“Baseless claims about the integrity of the system or the accuracy of the results have been rejected by electoral authorities, subject matter experts and outside fact-checkers,” the company says.

“Malicious and misleading false claims about Dominion have created dangerous threats and harassment to the company and its employees, as well as to election officials.”

Last week, another voting machine company, Smartmatic, announced that it had served Fox News, Newsmax and OAN legal notices and cancellation notices “in order to publish false and defamatory statements”.

“The letters of formal notice list dozens of factually inaccurate statements made by each organization as part of a” disinformation campaign “to violate Smartmatic and discredit the 2020 US election,” the company said at the time.

“Smartmatic had nothing to do with the” controversies “that certain public and private figures have posed regarding the 2020 US election,” the company said. “Several fact-checkers have consistently exposed these false statements with astonishing consistency and regularity.”

Smartmatic said that despite false claims to the contrary, it was “only involved in the US 2020 election as the manufacturing partner, systems integrator and software developer for the Los Angeles County’s public voting system.”