Just more than a year later, former Fox News host Andrea Tantaros’ lawsuit against the network, in which she alleged she had been the victim of “illegal electronic surveillance and computer hacking,” was dismissed Friday.
Tantaros alleged in her suit that the network had surveilled and harassed her in retaliation for her claims that she was sexually harassed by former network chair Roger Ailes and others. A separate suit covering Tantaros’ harassment claims was sent to private arbitration last year.
In the suit dismissed Friday, Tantaros had alleged that Fox News — she specifically named the network; Ailes; former Co-President Bill Shine; Fox and Fox Business corporate communications head Irena Briganti; and tech investor Pete Snyder and his company, Disrupter, Inc. — gained unauthorized access to her email and social media profiles in order to harass her.
Tantaros also alleged Snyder was employed to target her with a swarm of aggressive social media accounts in order to harass and discredit her. Tantaros alleged the accounts were “sock puppets,” operated by the defendants.
“Plaintiff’s amended complaint is based primarily on speculation and conjecture,” Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District of New York wrote (read his full decision below). “Moreover, she fails to adequately make out the basic elements of her claims.”
There is a problem with being such mean-spirited, mendacious and disgusting person. Nobody believes that you are the victim of anything.
The break room at a former job had the TV locked on Fox News and I was forced to listen everyday to a coven of witches that included this Harpy, who was the absolute worse person that I have listened in TV ever.
Nothing like a taste of one’s own bile…
"“Plaintiff’s amended complaint is based primarily on speculation and conjecture,” Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District of New York wrote (read his full decision below). “Moreover, she fails to adequately make out the basic elements of her claims.”
Wow…it’s rare you see a dismissal like that. The first sentence though walks the line of what’s permissible analysis on a motion to dismiss. Generally, “there’s no support for these factual allegations” is a decision on the merits and more appropriate for summary judgment. The second sentence though…that’s failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and means that either her attorney fucked up crafting the complaint or did the best he could trying to dress up a nothingburger and still couldn’t allege enough to cover all the required elements of the claims.
Normally, I’m on the woman’s side in these things. But, she is so thoroughly despicable…
gee, now she has to go find a job.
Easy money cash in failed. boo hoo