(CN) - The CEO of MyPillow and Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Mike Lindell lost a bid to overturn a verdict on Wednesday after a Denver-based jury found that he defamed a man while promoting 2020 election denial conspiracy theories that favored President Donald Trump. 

The eight-person jury found that Lindell defamed former Dominion Voting Systems Director Eric Coomer in June of 2025. The jury awarded $2.7 million in damages to Coomer against Lindell's social media network, FrankSpeech.

Coomer sued Lindell, MyPillow and FrankSpeech after Lindell accused him of treason and rigging the 2020 election in statements that were broadcast through FrankSpeech.

The defendants asked the court to rule that neither Lindell nor his social media company could be held liable for defamation and that FrankSpeech was immune under laws protecting internet platforms. They also asked the court to set aside the jury's economic damages.

A federal judge denied Lindell's motion for a judgment as a matter of law on all grounds argued by the defendants. The motion, while rare in civil litigation, would have allowed for the court to overturn the jury's verdict if no reasonable jury could have reached that conclusion.

U.S. District Judge Nina Wang wrote that Lindell and FrankSpeech did not play passive roles in the election fraud narratives but were actively promoting them. Further, Lindell was directly responsible for FrankSpeech's actions.

"He regularly acted as its corporate representative, including at trial. He hosted his own show on FrankSpeech, broadcasted it through FrankSpeech, and used the FrankSpeech platform to make and publish statements about Dr. Coomer," wrote Wang, who is a Joe Biden appointee. "There is no evidence that anyone other than Mr. Lindell exercised any meaningful degree of control over the FrankSpeech entity. By all accounts, FrankSpeech was Mr. Lindell's corporate alter ego in this context. Based on this evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude that Mr. Lindell's statements on FrankSpeech broadcasts were within the scope of his actual authority as an agent of FrankSpeech."

Lindell spent millions of dollars on his own investigation into the widely debunked theory that the 2020 presidential election was rigged. 

Additionally, the court found that another man, David Clements, acted as an agent of FrankSpeech when he also accused Coomer of election rigging at Lindell's Cyber Symposium event in 2021, which sought to show irrefutable evidence of election rigging. Critically, the event was leveraged through Lindell's businesses, Wang wrote in her ruling. (Clements was not a defendant in the case.)

Because of this, FrankSpeech was not protected under Section 230 of the Consumer Decency Act, which shields platforms from statements made by their users, Wang concluded. 

Wang also rejected Lindell's argument that damages were unwarranted because the plaintiff's reputation had been damaged prior to any of the election rigging accusations. Coomer testified that the harassment intensified after the Cyber Symposium resulted in him seeking medication. It wasn't unreasonable for a jury to conclude that the defendants were responsible, Wang wrote.

A jury declined to award punitive damages against Lindell, which he argued was evidence that he did not act with actual malice, a legal term in libel law that a statement was made with reckless disregard for the truth. But Wang also rejected this argument, writing that the jury's decision did not mean his speech was necessarily protected.

Similarly, the defendants also argued FrankSpeech was not liable for actual malice. 

"The court's conclusions thus far mostly dispose of defendants' arguments on this point," Wang wrote. "Defendants argue, for instance, that the evidence 'showed that FrankSpeech's presence was merely to livestream an event that FrankSpeech did not create nor control.' But, as explained, plaintiff presented evidence showing FrankSpeech's involvement with the Cyber Symposium went further than merely livestreaming the event, and the court has already held that a reasonable jury could conclude that Mr. Lindell and Mr. Clements were agents of FrankSpeech for purposes of the Cyber Symposium."

Wang also slammed the defense attorneys Christopher Kachouroff and Jennifer DeMaster for repeated misattributions of court cases in their filings. 

"The court cannot ignore this reoccurring conduct simply because the trial is over," she wrote. "Regardless of whether generative artificial intelligence was used or not, the 10th Circuit has been clear that an attorney has a 'fundamental duty' to the court to confirm that all legal authorities in submissions to the court are accurately cited, reflect accurate quotations, and stand for the propositions for which they are cited."

Wang ordered Kachouroff and DeMaster to appear for an order to show cause hearing for why they should not be cited $5,000 or referred to their respective bar associations for discipline. 

Wednesday's ruling was not entirely one-sided, though.

Wang also denied a motion by Coomer to increase the damages for what he said was FrankSpeech's continued defamation campaign in statements made during the lawsuit. Coomer originally requested $60 million in damages. 

However, it was not clear that the statements in question were necessarily defamatory of Coomer himself or sponsored by FrankSpeech, Wang wrote. 

"Plaintiff has provided no explanation or evidence that these statements led to additional harassment, further reduced his employment prospects, or even caused him renewed emotional distress," Wang wrote. "The court declines to comb the record or construct arguments on plaintiff's behalf, especially given the high burden of proof he faces at this stage."

Coomer is also claiming defamation in a lawsuit against the Trump campaign and former Trump lawyers Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, which is scheduled to go to trial in April. 

Attorneys for Coomer or Lindell did not respond to requests for comment.

Source: Courthouse News Service