Paramount Is Starting to Fight Back Against Trump in ’60 Minutes’ Lawsuit

In January, reports that Paramount Global was mulling whether to settle a long-shot lawsuit filed by President Trump against its CBS News unit sparked a frenzy over the appearance that the company was capitulating to the administration as it sought regulatory approval for its merger with Skydance Media.

A month later, that settlement hasn’t materialized, with Paramount now signaling that it’s prepared to go on the offensive. Its multipronged legal strategy revolves around arguments that Trump is judge-shopping, choosing to file the lawsuit at a court where a sympathetic judge is likely to oversee the case, and the possibility that those suing the company agreed to arbitration clauses when they used services hosted by the entertainment conglomerate. It’s also leveraging the threat of uncovering information about Trump’s financials, including with respect to his social media company Truth Social and the cryptocurrency he launched, in discovery.

The legal battle has emerged as the most visible example of media’s incentives to stay out of Trump’s crosshairs by settling what many believe to be a frivolous lawsuit. At best, the deal could be understood by the public as admitting fault in its editing of the interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris or, at worst, a bribe.

CBS News isn’t the only outlet that Trump has targeted. Ahead of Trump’s inauguration, ABC News agreed to contribute $15 million to his presidential foundation or museum to settle a defamation lawsuit over George Stephanopoulos’ coverage saying he was found “liable for rape” when he was actually found liable for sexual abuse. Since then, Meta and X (formerly Twitter) have also struck deals to resolve lawsuits over their suspension of his social media accounts.

Trump and Paramount have clashing views of the case. In the president’s telling, CBS News aired a “heavily tampered interview” intended to help Harris by editing certain answers in a way that misled consumers. This manipulation of the interview, he’s said, constitutes a violation of Texas’ consumer protection law covering deceptive advertising and the unfair competition prong of the Lanham Act.

As a news organization, CBS has maintained that its editorial judgments are constitutionally protected free speech.

The next major decision in the case will likely be whether the lawsuit should be dismissed and transferred to New York federal court. Earlier this month, Trump revised the complaint to add Republican U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson, his former doctor who lives in Texas, to keep the case in federal court in the Northern District of Texas, which has become a hot spot for lawsuits advancing conservative legal causes. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who’s overseeing the litigation and is the only judge in the Amarillo division of the court, was nominated to his position by Trump in 2017 and has been a member of the Federalist Society since 2012. In his five years on the bench, he’s issued rulings against several initiatives implemented by former President Joe Biden, some of which were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Representative Jackson is not only a citizen of Texas, but is the Congressman for the 13th Congressional District, which embraces much of the Northern District of Texas and is situated entirely within this judicial District,” wrote Edward Paltzik, a lawyer for Trump, in the filing. “President Trump’s media holdings also derive a substantial amount of their profit from Texas. There is a clear affiliation between Texas and the underlying controversy, as Defendants targeted their deceptive services toward the State and this District as among the leading media markets and population bases in America.”

CBS, which is incorporated in New York, argued in a Tuesday filing that the lawsuit doesn’t belong in Texas because the 60 Minutes segment didn’t target Texans more than residents of other states. It pointed to case law clarifying that it would unfairly burden media outlets whose content is available nationally to be sued in Texas federal court just because it has a large population. Added C. Jason Fenton, a lawyer for Paramount, in the filing, “Venue is improper in this District because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim did not occur in the Northern District of Texas; the interview with Vice President Harris was filmed and edited entirely outside Texas, and Plaintiffs do not even allege that they watched the interview in Texas.”

Paramount has also signaled that it’ll seek to move the case to arbitration depending on what’s revealed in discovery. It said it’ll pursue information over whether Trump has “purchased goods or services” and whether Jackson “agreed to arbitrate claims relating to CBS’ services.”

This could relate to arbitration clauses users must sign to make an account on Paramount+ or CBS.com. “If you or we have any dispute with or claims against the other arising out of or relating in any way to the services or these terms…you and we each agree to resolve such disputes through an individual binding arbitration or an individual action in small claims court,” states the streaming platform’s terms of use, which says that the scope and enforceability of the agreement must be decided by an arbitrator.

Whether Trump’s claims could be subject to arbitration is unknown. Last year, Disney moved to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit from a doctor who experienced a fatal allergic reaction to food she ate at a restaurant located within a shopping center owned by Disney by pointing to terms of service her husband agreed to when signing up for Disney+. The court could decide that Trump’s consumer fraud and unfair competition claims are too far removed from the scope of any arbitration clauses he may have signed when purchasing services from Paramount.

Also included in the company’s discovery request is information regarding the finances of Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign organizations and Trump Media & Technology Group, as well as the president’s legal relationship, if any, with those two groups. Some of the documents Paramount seeks may be subject to executive privilege.

A jury trial is scheduled to begin in 2026.

Earlier this month, CBS publicly released the full transcripts and videos of the 60 Minutes interview. It said in a statement at the time that the records show that the broadcast “was not doctored or deceitful.” It added, “In reporting the news, journalists regularly edit interviews — for time, space or clarity. In making these edits, 60 Minutes is always guided by the truth and what we believe will be most informative to the viewing public — all while working within the constraints of broadcast television.”