|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
A federal judge has entered a default judgment in favor of Hunter Biden in his long-running defamation lawsuit against former Overstock.com chief executive Patrick Byrne, concluding Byrne repeatedly ignored court orders, obstructed the litigation and forfeited his opportunity to defend himself before a jury.
In a 25-page order (.pdf) issued Friday (July 10, 2026), U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson granted Hunter Biden’s motion for default judgment, awarding him $1.7 million in punitive damages along with nominal damages, enforcing previously imposed monetary sanctions against Byrne and denying Byrne’s attempt to set aside the default.
The team representing Hunter Biden included veteran Columbia defense attorneys Dick Harpootlian and Phillip Barber — the same legal team currently defending Alex Murdaugh as prosecutors prepare to retry the disgraced South Carolina attorney on murder charges.
***
Allegations At The Center Of The Lawsuit
Hunter Biden filed the lawsuit (.pdf) in November 2023 after Byrne publicly accused him of attempting to broker a corrupt deal with the Iranian government.
According to the complaint, Byrne claimed Hunter Biden approached Iranian officials in late 2021 and offered to persuade then-President Joe Biden to unfreeze approximately $8 billion in Iranian assets in exchange for an $800 million payment into a secret account. Byrne further alleged the arrangement would influence ongoing negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.
Hunter Biden alleged the accusations were entirely fabricated and knowingly false. The complaint also accused Byrne of republishing those allegations on social media following Hamas’ October 7, 2023 terrorist attack on Israel, implying Hunter Biden’s purported actions had contributed to the outbreak of violence.
***
Case Never Reached A Jury
Although the lawsuit was scheduled for trial in July 2025, the case unraveled before jurors ever heard evidence.
Judge Wilson’s order recounts a lengthy pattern of conduct that the court determined warranted the harsh sanction of default judgment.
On the morning trial was set to begin, Byrne failed to appear and abruptly terminated his lead trial attorney without advance notice. The court granted a continuance rather than immediately entering default, giving Byrne another opportunity to retain counsel and participate in the proceedings.
Instead, according to the order, Byrne continued to disregard the court’s directives.
The judge found Byrne repeatedly failed to provide court-ordered discovery, ignored deadlines, refused to supply contact information required for service, skipped multiple hearings despite being ordered to appear personally and failed to respond to orders directing him to explain his noncompliance. Even after being warned that continued violations could result in default judgment, Byrne remained unresponsive.
Wilson ultimately concluded Byrne’s actions demonstrated a deliberate effort to delay and obstruct the litigation, making it impossible for the case to proceed toward trial.
***
RELATED | Murdaugh Attorney Phil Barber Challenges ‘Overwhelming Evidence’ Narrative
***
Court Previously Found Evidence Supporting Actual Malice
While the case ended procedurally rather than through a jury verdict, Judge Wilson’s order also recounted an earlier decision denying Byrne’s motion for summary judgment. In that ruling, the court found Hunter Biden had presented sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude Byrne acted with “actual malice”—the constitutional standard public figures must meet to prevail in defamation cases.
Byrne maintained he believed his allegations were true because they originated with an Iranian government official, Mehdi Firouzian.
The court was unconvinced.
Wilson wrote that Byrne’s claims rested largely on multiple layers of unverified hearsay and that he failed to conduct any meaningful independent investigation before publicly repeating the allegations. The court also found Byrne failed to produce documentary evidence supporting his claims, that portions of his account were contradicted by sworn testimony from other witnesses, and that key aspects of his story were internally inconsistent and inherently implausible. Byrne further claimed he had destroyed what he described as a recording documenting the alleged conversation, while an FBI agent testified he did not recall ever receiving such a recording despite Byrne’s assertions.
Taken together, the court concluded there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find Byrne either knew his allegations were false or acted with reckless disregard for whether they were true—the legal definition of “actual malice” established by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
Rather than allowing Byrne to reopen the litigation after default had been entered, Wilson denied his motion to set aside the default, enforced previously imposed monetary sanctions and entered judgment awarding Hunter Biden nominal damages and $1.7 million in punitive damages.
In a statement following the ruling, Biden’s legal team characterized the decision as a sweeping rejection of Byrne’s allegations.
“For three years, former CEO of Overstock.com, Patrick Byrne accused Hunter Biden of treason and linked him to a terrorist attack,” the attorneys said. “Yesterday, a federal judge – Republican appointee – found that every one of those claims was fabricated. The Court described Mr. Byrne as not a credible person.”
The attorneys added that the ruling “affirms that the rule of law still exists in this country.”
They also emphasized the significance of the award, stating that the judgment “includes $1.7 million in punitive damages to be paid to Hunter Biden and that is the floor, not the ceiling, of what Mr. Byrne owes for his conduct.”
The statement concluded with a warning that further defamatory statements could prompt additional litigation.
“If Mr. Byrne repeats any of these claims, we will see him back in court.”
The ruling brings to a close nearly three years of litigation over Byrne’s allegations and underscores two important principles of defamation law: public figures face a high burden to prove “actual malice,” but litigants who repeatedly disregard court orders risk forfeiting their opportunity to present their case altogether.
***
THE ORDER
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
SOUND OFF…
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
