Kevin O'Leary, Fox News sued over Utah data center claims alleging China ties

Kevin O'Leary and Fox News are facing a defamation lawsuit over claims O'Leary made about a planned Utah AI data center and the people opposing it. On Wednesday, the Alliance for a Better Utah, Elevate Strategies, Gabrielle Finlayson, and Josh Kanter filed the suit in Utah federal district court, according to reporting by The New York Times and Business Insider. The plaintiffs allege that O'Leary's assertions caused “devastating reputational harm, significant economic losses, severe emotional distress, and ongoing threats to their physical safety.”

The lawsuit points to a specific pattern: O'Leary was repeatedly invited on Fox programming to make allegations that the plaintiffs say were baseless. In their complaint, the plaintiffs say, “Fox was instrumental in O’Leary’s defamatory smear campaign, putting him on air to attack Plaintiffs five times in three weeks.” They also argue Fox allowed him to broadcast “false accusations to millions of viewers without any qualification,” despite what they describe as O'Leary’s “inherently unreliable claims” and “clear lack of support.”

If you are an executive who lives in the world of brand safety, media risk, and regulatory exposure, this is the kind of case that tends to escalate fast. The headline facts are straightforward: the lawsuit exists, it names Fox and O'Leary, and it ties alleged harm to on-air statements. But the case also sits inside a larger, increasingly common battleground: where billion-dollar infrastructure and AI buildouts meet national security narratives, foreign-influence suspicions, and high-reach media amplification.

Zoom in on the catalyst. The suit stems from a May appearance O'Leary made on “Mornings with Maria.” There, he claimed some individuals involved in a campaign against a 40,000-acre AI data center had ties to China. Business Insider reports that at one point he alleged the opponents were “proxies for the Chinese Government.” That is the core of the dispute, because it turns a local, policy-flavored project controversy into a geopolitical allegation with real-world consequences for reputations and partnerships.

In response, Fox News Media said it corrected the record on air and said it intends to vigorously defend itself. Fox spokesperson Irena Brigant told The New York Times that Fox News Media “publicly corrected the record on every program where on-air guest Kevin O’Leary’s comments were made,” and that this correction was “extensively publicized.” The statement added, “We will vigorously defend against this lawsuit.” Separate from that, Fox had previously issued an on-air apology in June for O'Leary’s remarks.

According to the report, the June apology came from Johnny Joey Jones, host of “Big Weekend Show.” Jones said Kevin O'Leary appeared on May 24 and discussed the ongoing controversy surrounding his planned data center project in Utah, making certain claims about the opponents of his project. Jones said that O'Leary “has now corrected the record and explained he has ‘no evidence’ that the Alliance for a Better Utah, Josh Kantor or Taylor Knuth are funded by China or the Chinese communist party.” The apology continued that Fox News Media is “likewise aware of no evidence” that those individuals are funded by, acting in the direction of, or in coordination with Chinese interests in opposing O’Leary’s project, and Fox also apologized “for the error.”

There is also a digital trail. Additionally, O'Leary clarified via X in June that he had “no evidence” for the claims he made. As of writing, TheWrap says O'Leary had not released a statement following the lawsuit.

So what is the business-level relevance beyond the celebrity factor? For companies, investors, and boards watching any AI infrastructure development, this case is a reminder that “narratives” are operational. When media statements cross into alleged foreign ties, they can quickly affect regulatory scrutiny, fundraising optics, stakeholder relations, and partner comfort. Even when a network says it corrected the record, the underlying allegations can already have traveled, been screenshotted, and been discussed by audiences that never saw the correction.

And for media platforms, there is a tightrope. Fox’s defense, as described, leans on correction and public acknowledgment, plus the intent to “vigorously defend.” The plaintiffs’ argument leans on distribution and timing: multiple on-air appearances across a short period, plus the lack of qualification the plaintiffs say should have accompanied the claims. In other words, the case is not only about what was said, but also how it was staged and repeated.

If you are a CEO, general counsel, or board member, the second-order lesson is simple: in disputes around major projects, reputational risk can behave like a supply chain problem. Once an allegation is introduced, it can propagate through partners, contractors, local politics, and public sentiment. This lawsuit shows how quickly an on-air geopolitical claim can become a court filing, and how corrections do not automatically erase exposure. The stakes are reputational, financial, and personal, and that is exactly why this story is worth tracking, even if you never watch “Shark Tank.”