Judge Already Ruled on Jessica Tarlov’s $30 Million Lawsuit — But the Viral Graphic Leaves Out a Crucial Detail

A viral graphic claiming that a judge has ruled on a $30 million lawsuit against Fox News host Jessica Tarlov is based on a real court case, but the wording makes the development sound much newer and more dramatic than it is.

The lawsuit was dismissed in November 2024, not newly decided in 2026. The judge also ordered the plaintiffs to pay Tarlov's legal fees and costs.

The case has been appealed, however, meaning the broader legal dispute has not necessarily reached its final appellate resolution.

The lawsuit began with a statement on Fox News

The case was brought by Anthony Bobulinski, a former business associate of Hunter Biden, and his attorney Stefan Passantino.

During a March 20, 2024 episode of The Five, Tarlov discussed Bobulinski's testimony before the House Oversight Committee. She initially said that Bobulinski's lawyers' fees had been paid by a Trump super PAC.

The following day, Tarlov issued an on-air clarification.

She said that what had actually been established at the congressional hearing was that the law firm representing Bobulinski had received a payment from a Trump PAC, while saying she had seen no indication that the payment was connected to Bobulinski's own legal fees and noting that Bobulinski denied that it was.

Bobulinski and Passantino subsequently sued Tarlov, seeking $30 million in compensatory, special and punitive damages.

The judge dismissed the case

U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on Nov. 26, 2024.

The court granted Tarlov's motion to dismiss and also granted her request for attorney's fees under New York's anti-SLAPP law.

The judge acknowledged an important point: Tarlov's original March 20 statement was false.

But falsity alone was not enough to establish defamation.

The court concluded that saying Bobulinski's legal fees had been paid by a Trump PAC did not, in the circumstances, expose him to the kind of public contempt, hatred, ridicule or disgrace required for a defamation claim under New York law.

The court also rejected the argument that Tarlov's statement reasonably implied that Bobulinski had given false testimony to Congress.

The correction mattered

The court separately examined Tarlov's March 21 clarification.

Judge Oetken found that clarification was not itself defamatory because it accurately reflected what Rep. Jasmine Crockett had said during the congressional hearing: that the law firm representing Bobulinski had received a $10,000 payment from Trump's Save America PAC.

The judge rejected the plaintiffs' argument that Tarlov's use of the word “clarify” rather than “retract” somehow preserved the original allegation.

The ruling said Tarlov was not required to use the precise wording demanded by the plaintiffs' lawyers for the clarification to count as a correction.

Tarlov was awarded more than $333,000

The financial consequence for the plaintiffs was significant.

In a March 20, 2025 order, Judge Oetken awarded Tarlov:

• $331,859.26 in attorney's fees
• $1,815.40 in costs
• $333,674.66 total

The court concluded that the complaint lacked a “substantial basis in fact and law,” making the fee award available under New York's anti-SLAPP statute.

So the viral graphic's $30 million figure is not money awarded against Tarlov. It was the amount the plaintiffs originally sought.

The actual court-ordered payment went in the opposite direction: Bobulinski and Passantino were ordered to pay Tarlov more than $333,000 in fees and costs.

But the case was appealed

There is one important caveat the graphic does not mention.

Bobulinski and Passantino appealed the district-court ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where the case was docketed as No. 25-17 in January 2025. The appellate docket shows the appeal was opened and that the appellants filed their brief in February 2025.

Available docket information does not show a reported appellate decision overturning the district court's ruling. A recent case summary likewise reports no appellate decision as of mid-2026.

That means it would be inaccurate to portray the matter as though a brand-new judge has just decided the entire dispute.

What the viral graphic gets right — and wrong

What is accurate:

• A $30 million lawsuit was filed against Jessica Tarlov.
• The lawsuit arose from comments she made on The Five.
• A federal judge ruled in Tarlov's favor.
• The complaint was dismissed.
• Tarlov was awarded attorney's fees and costs.
• The plaintiffs appealed.

What is misleading:

• The ruling was not new; the dismissal came in November 2024.
• The $30 million was not a judgment against Tarlov.
• Tarlov was actually awarded more than $333,000 in fees and costs.
• The appellate case remains an important part of the legal picture.
• Calling Tarlov a “liberal Fox host” is political characterization rather than part of the court's ruling; Fox identifies her as a contributor and rotating co-host of The Five.

Bottom line

The underlying court story is real, but the viral headline is repackaging a nearly two-year-old lawsuit as though a dramatic new ruling has just occurred.

Judge Oetken dismissed the $30 million defamation case against Jessica Tarlov in November 2024 and later ordered the plaintiffs to pay $333,674.66 in attorney's fees and costs. The plaintiffs appealed, and the available appellate docket does not show a subsequent ruling overturning that result.