Major Verdict Against MyPillow CEO for Defamation

Dramatic verdict is announced in a high-profile defamation case.

News Summary

A federal jury in Denver has ruled that Mike Lindell, founder of MyPillow, is liable for defamation against Eric Coomer, a former executive at Dominion Voting Systems. The jury awarded $2.3 million in damages to Coomer for Lindell’s false statements, which included serious allegations made during various media appearances. The case highlights ongoing issues related to misinformation following the controversial 2020 presidential election and raises questions about accountability in media and speech. Lindell’s legal team plans to appeal the verdict as they argue for free speech rights.

Major Verdict Against MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell for Defamation

In a shocking turn of events, a federal jury in Denver has found Mike Lindell, the founder of MyPillow, liable for defamation against Eric Coomer, a former executive at Dominion Voting Systems. This verdict, awarded on June 16, 2025, comes with a hefty price tag of $2.3 million in damages for Coomer, marking a significant moment in the ongoing battle over misinformation following the controversial 2020 presidential election.

Defamatory Statements at the Center of the Case

Over the course of two weeks, the jury listened to evidence regarding Lindell’s earlier statements made about Coomer, which were characterized as defamatory. They included calling him a “traitor” and accusing him of being part of “the biggest crime this world has ever seen.” One particularly noteworthy statement was made on May 9, 2021, closely following an apology by Newsmax to Coomer for airing some false allegations against him. Another of Lindell’s derogatory comments popped up on April 6, 2022, after Coomer had served him with a lawsuit! Talk about rubbing salt in the wound!

Lindell’s Media Platform Held Accountable

Interestingly, the jury didn’t stop at Lindell himself. They also found that his media platform, Frankspeech, was liable for defamation due to comments made during an election fraud symposium that was live-streamed in 2021. While Lindell managed to dodge defamation in eight other statements, this verdict still raises significant questions about accountability in the realm of media and speech.

A Stand for Free Speech or Just Irresponsible Claims?

Lindell’s legal team asserts that he has merely been standing up for free speech, arguing that he genuinely believed in the truth of his claims regarding voting machines and election fraud. They portrayed the jury’s decision as a minimal victory, especially in light of Coomer’s initial claim for $62.7 million in damages. Despite the jury’s ruling, Lindell plans to appeal the verdict and intends to keep speaking out against voting machines. This could set the stage for even more legal wrangling in the future.

The Bigger Picture of Misinformation

Coomer has been quite vocal about the harm caused by Lindell’s accusations, insisting that they significantly damaged both his reputation and the integrity of the electoral process. His legal team expressed hope that this verdict might serve as a stepping stone to heal some of the wounds inflicted on democracy by the spread of misinformation related to the 2020 election.

Not the Only Legal Trouble for Lindell

This incident is just one piece of a larger puzzle. Coomer is also pursuing another lawsuit in Colorado against a podcaster related to similar claims about election rigging. Additionally, Lindell is facing lawsuits from both Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic, who are seeking significant damages connected to his allegations.

The Road Ahead

With legal battles like these continuing to unfold, it’s clear that the ramifications of the 2020 election are far from over. Shortly after the verdict, the Salem Media Group, a media organization, issued an apology to Coomer and removed related statements from their website, emphasizing the impact of Lindell’s claims on public perception.

As the dust settles, this case shines a light on the critical issues surrounding misinformation and its effects on individuals and institutions. The jury’s decision could potentially lead to deeper conversations about accountability in the media and the responsibilities of those who claim to report the truth.