On September 3, 2025, Newsmax decided that if you can’t beat Fox in ratings, you might as well sue them for antitrust violations. The conservative underdog filed a scorched-earth complaint in the Southern District of Florida, accusing Fox Corp. and Fox News of monopolizing the right-leaning TV news market for years.
The laundry list of grievances reads like a mafia screenplay written by a corporate lawyer: Fox allegedly pressured cable and streaming distributors like Hulu, Sling, and Fubo to sideline Newsmax; discouraged guests from appearing on the network; sicced private investigators on Newsmax executives; and even deployed sock-puppet smear accounts against CEO Chris Ruddy. On top of that, Fox allegedly leveraged outsized carriage fees to starve smaller rivals, leaving Newsmax to starve at the kiddie table while Fox feasted on prime-time steak.
Newsmax wants a jury trial and treble damages under the Sherman Act and Florida law. The case is being led by heavyweight firm Kellogg Hansen with Sperling Kenny Nachwalter—a legal dream team that signals Ruddy is serious. Fox, predictably, dismissed the suit as excuse-making for “competitive failures.” Translation: “You’re mad because no one watches you.”
This lawsuit doesn’t just pit two conservative media brands against each other. It’s a blood sport in broad daylight, with the loser left bleeding credibility while Dominion’s ghost hovers, whispering “we already collected from both of you.”
The Dominion Hangover
The timing is spectacular. Just weeks ago, Newsmax paid $67 million to settle Dominion’s defamation claim. That’s pocket change compared to Fox’s $787.5 million payout to Dominion in 2023, but still enough to sting. Both networks were caught red-handed in the post-2020 misinformation bazaar, selling voter-fraud snake oil to keep viewers caffeinated on grievance. Both got dragged into court for it. Both bled cash.
Now, instead of recalibrating, they’re suing each other. It’s like two drunks leaving traffic court and immediately filing slip-and-fall claims against each other at the same bar.
Antitrust Theater
Newsmax’s complaint is framed as a defense of competition, democracy, and consumer choice. Let’s not be fooled. This is antitrust theater, staged by a network that wouldn’t be screaming about monopolies if it were the monopoly. The only reason Newsmax suddenly cares about the Sherman Act is because Fox allegedly keeps hogging the buffet line.
There’s something almost poetic about watching the right wing discover the vocabulary of Elizabeth Warren. Suddenly it’s all about “concentrated power,” “gatekeeping,” and “distribution strangleholds.” One half expects Newsmax to roll out a Bernie Sanders cameo, declaring Fox “too big to fail, too big to jail.”
Fox as the Mob Boss
The allegations paint Fox as the mob boss of conservative media. Strong-arming distributors, intimidating guests, hiring private investigators—it’s the Tony Soprano model of news dominance.
And really, why wouldn’t Fox behave this way? For decades it has been the undisputed kingmaker of right-leaning media, with a brand so sticky that cable distributors practically beg to carry it at premium fees. Newsmax is a mosquito by comparison—buzzing, irritating, but not lethal. If Fox truly sicced sock-puppet accounts on Chris Ruddy, it wasn’t to kill him. It was to swat him into irrelevance.
The Sock-Puppet Circus
Let’s pause on that detail: sock-puppet smear accounts against Newsmax executives. Nothing screams monopoly power like taking the time to run anonymous Twitter accounts calling your rival’s CEO a loser. If true, it’s less “corporate strategy” and more “mean girls with corporate credit cards.”
Imagine Fox executives in a strategy meeting:
- Should we innovate in digital streaming?
- Nah, let’s start a burner account calling Ruddy “Chris Duddy.”
That’s not monopolization. That’s cyberbullying in a Brooks Brothers suit.
The Guests Who Ghosted
Another allegation: Fox discouraged guests from appearing on Newsmax. This may actually be true, but it also reveals the sad state of Newsmax’s rolodex. If your network lives or dies on whether Mike Huckabee shows up twice a week, you don’t have an antitrust case. You have a booking problem.
The right-wing ecosystem is not a bustling free market of intellectual diversity. It’s a rotating carousel of the same 20 pundits, all happy to jump on whichever chyron pays. If they’re skipping Newsmax for Fox, it’s not always coercion. Sometimes it’s just better lighting.
Carriage Fees, the Real Battlefield
Strip away the sock puppets and the spies, and what this really boils down to is carriage fees. Fox can demand outsized payments from distributors because it has leverage. Newsmax can’t. This is the actual monopoly muscle: if Hulu or Sling must choose, Fox gets the sweetheart deal and Newsmax gets shoved into the “add-on package” next to horse racing and Croatian cooking channels.
Is it unfair? Sure. Is it illegal? That’s what courts will decide. But let’s be honest: Newsmax is suing because it hates being treated like the Croatian cooking channel.
The Ratings Reality
At the heart of this fight is a reality both sides hate to admit: Fox has the audience, Newsmax doesn’t. Post-2020, Newsmax briefly spiked in ratings by outflanking Fox on conspiracy content. But spikes aren’t sustainable. Fox remains the McDonald’s of conservative news: consistent, predictable, omnipresent. Newsmax is the food truck parked outside: occasionally trendy, often overlooked, always at risk of running out of gas.
This lawsuit won’t change that dynamic. Even if Newsmax wins treble damages, Fox still dominates distribution and brand loyalty. Money doesn’t buy relevance. If it did, CNN+ would still be alive.
The Jury Trial Fantasy
Newsmax wants a jury trial. Picture that jury: twelve ordinary citizens being asked to referee a knife fight between Fox and Newsmax. Twelve people who, statistically, don’t watch either network, who may vaguely remember Dominion settlements but can’t tell Sean Hannity from a steakhouse menu.
The lawyers will stand there, arguing about distribution agreements and gatekeeping power, while the jury quietly wonders if they can stream Netflix during breaks. A verdict may come, but it will not be the cultural catharsis Newsmax imagines.
Antitrust in the Funhouse Mirror
This case is bigger than its combatants, though. It’s a funhouse mirror for America’s broken media landscape. When the two biggest purveyors of post-truth grievance politics start suing each other over access and fairness, it’s proof that the rot isn’t ideological. It’s structural. It’s the pipes.
Cable distribution, streaming placement, carriage fees—these are the choke points where power lives. Fox mastered them. Newsmax did not. And now we’re watching a supposed war of ideas reduced to a billing dispute.
The Haunting Close
So here we are: Fox, the monopolist in tailored suits, accused of being the mob boss of conservative media. Newsmax, the underdog with Dominion still ringing in its ears, suddenly recast as an antitrust crusader. A courtroom brawl framed as a fight for democracy but really about who gets the bigger slice of the carriage-fee pie.
On September 3, 2025, Newsmax didn’t just sue Fox. It sued for relevance. It sued because being second place in the outrage economy pays less. It sued because monopoly power hurts worst when you’re not the monopolist.
And here is the haunting truth: when the guardians of grievance sue each other for unfairness, it’s not justice being served. It’s karma, gift-wrapped in legal filings.
The question isn’t whether Fox or Newsmax wins. The question is whether the audience realizes that both sides are selling the same thing: not truth, not journalism, but a commodity called outrage—and they’re fighting not for the soul of America, but for the right to bill you for it.