Yeah, I don't expect any cases will be dismissed right out of the gate.
But defamation cases are a nasty affair, especially when you are dealing with a media defendant. Media members and companies are rightfully afforded great protection. There are questions relating to whether the plaintiffs are "public figures." There are questions relating to whether the statements are really statements of fact, or statements of opinion. Then Fox will claim they are reporting what Giuliani and the others were arguing in court and out of it, which is certainly newsworthy. The individuals, who are lawyers, will claim that their statements and arguments in court are privileged and not subject to defamation claims, and their statements to the press were simply a recitation of their privileged court arguments.
Then you can get into the whole reputation problem. When someone sues for defamation, the facts of the case essentially become, "how dirty are you?" So every piece of crap, every lawsuit, every claim by a former employee, etc..., that could have tarnished these companies reputations will be publicly aired.
Then, and only then, do we get to the question of damages, which FS23 and I will just have to agree to disagree on. I think they are going to have to prove actual damages if they want to get anything beyond that, because the courthouse steps are littered with defamation cases where plaintiffs proved little or no actual damages but got a huge award based upon some sort of harm to their reputation, only to see appeals courts strip it all away.
