In what can only be described as the most dramatic political lawsuit of the year, Republican vice-presidential candidate J.D. Vance is taking CBS to court for a staggering $1 billion, accusing the network of “obvious bias” during the recent vice-presidential debate. Vance, who squared off against Democratic nominee Tim Walz in what many expected to be a calm, policy-centered discussion, has claimed that CBS’s moderators sabotaged his performance by consistently fact-checking him while giving Walz a free pass.
Vance’s legal team, spearheaded by none other than Rudy Giuliani, insists that the network’s moderators were so biased that the debate was “rigged” against him from the start. “This wasn’t a debate,” Giuliani said at a press conference. “It was a one-sided interrogation, and we will prove it in court.”
At the core of Vance’s $1 billion lawsuit is his claim that CBS’s moderators were not only biased but also actively working to derail his performance. During the 90-minute debate, Vance was fact-checked on multiple occasions, most notably when he repeated debunked claims about Haitian immigrants in Ohio. According to Vance, these fact-checks were “unfair and excessive,” painting him as a liar while Walz, his Democratic opponent, was allowed to glide through the debate unchallenged.
“They were out to get me from the start,” Vance claimed in a post-debate interview. “Every time I brought up a real issue—like the border crisis or the destruction of small businesses—the moderators would jump in and fact-check me as if I was spreading conspiracy theories. Meanwhile, Walz was talking nonsense about gun control and immigration reform, and they didn’t say a thing. It’s a disgrace.”
Vance’s lawsuit alleges that the moderators’ actions “undermined his credibility” and “damaged his campaign’s momentum” just weeks before the November election. His legal team is seeking $1 billion in damages for the emotional distress and reputational harm caused by the debate.
Another key element of the lawsuit involves the infamous moment when both candidates’ microphones were muted during a heated exchange. Vance’s legal team argues that CBS intentionally muted Vance at crucial moments, preventing him from defending himself or delivering his policy points effectively.
“Let’s be clear,” said Giuliani. “Muting a candidate’s mic during a debate is the ultimate act of censorship. It’s like pulling the rug out from under them in the middle of a sentence. They wanted to silence J.D. because they knew his message would resonate with voters.”
The muting incident occurred when Vance attempted to respond to Walz’s accusations about Donald Trump’s false claims of election fraud. According to the lawsuit, CBS muted Vance’s mic “at the exact moment he was about to deliver a powerful rebuttal,” leaving the audience with the impression that Vance had no response.
“It was sabotage, plain and simple,” Vance’s campaign spokesperson said. “This was a deliberate attempt to make J.D. look weak, and CBS needs to be held accountable.”
In addition to the mic muting, Vance’s lawsuit takes issue with the moderators’ body language during the debate, calling it “highly inappropriate” and “visibly biased.” Vance claims that the moderators often rolled their eyes or raised their eyebrows when he spoke, giving the audience the impression that his statements were untrustworthy or laughable.
“At one point, I brought up Trump’s record on lowering inflation, and the moderator literally rolled her eyes,” Vance said. “If that’s not bias, I don’t know what is. They were dismissive of everything I said, and that affects how viewers perceive the debate.”
Giuliani was quick to back Vance on this point, stating that “subtle cues like body language can have a huge impact on how candidates are perceived. When moderators roll their eyes or smirk at a candidate, it undermines their credibility. It’s psychological warfare, and we’re going to prove it in court.”
As news of Vance’s lawsuit broke, the public reaction was predictably divided. Supporters of Vance praised his decision to take legal action, viewing it as a bold move against the so-called liberal media. “It’s about time someone stood up to these biased networks,” said one supporter on social media. “CBS has been getting away with this for too long. They need to be held accountable.”
Conservative media outlets have also rallied behind Vance, painting him as a victim of the mainstream media’s alleged left-wing agenda. “What we saw during that debate was nothing short of a hit job,” said Fox News commentator Sean Hannity. “They went after J.D. Vance because he represents the values that middle America stands for. This lawsuit is a wake-up call to the media: stop playing favorites, or face the consequences.”
On the other side, critics of Vance have been less kind, with many mocking the lawsuit as a desperate stunt to garner attention. “Imagine suing a network for doing their job—fact-checking a candidate who repeatedly lies,” said one critic on X (formerly Twitter). “Maybe if Vance stopped spreading conspiracy theories, he wouldn’t get fact-checked so much.”
Memes mocking Vance’s claim about body language bias have also been circulating online, with one particularly viral post showing a CBS moderator rolling their eyes alongside the caption: “When someone tries to sue you for using your face.”
CBS, for its part, has dismissed Vance’s lawsuit as “baseless” and “laughable.” In a statement, the network defended its moderators and denied any bias during the debate. “Our moderators conducted the debate with the utmost professionalism, ensuring that both candidates had ample time to present their views,” the statement read. “We stand by our moderators and their commitment to journalistic integrity.”
The network also took a jab at Vance’s decision to file a $1 billion lawsuit, calling the figure “absurd” and suggesting that the lawsuit was more about generating headlines than seeking justice. “This lawsuit is clearly a publicity stunt, and we’re confident it will be thrown out of court,” CBS added.
As the lawsuit moves forward, legal experts are weighing in on whether Vance has any chance of winning. “It’s going to be tough for Vance to prove that CBS’s moderators were intentionally biased,” said legal analyst Jeffrey Adams. “Moderators are expected to fact-check candidates, and unless Vance can show clear evidence of malicious intent, this lawsuit probably won’t go anywhere.”
Others have pointed out that lawsuits over media bias rarely succeed, particularly when it comes to debates. “Candidates often claim that debates are unfair, but turning that into a $1 billion legal case is unprecedented,” said media law expert Sarah Franklin. “Vance’s team is going to have a hard time convincing a judge that his performance was sabotaged by body language and mic muting.”
While the lawsuit may or may not succeed, it’s already keeping Vance in the headlines—and that, some speculate, might be the real goal. In the increasingly theatrical world of American politics, a $1 billion lawsuit against a major network is certainly one way to grab attention.
Whether this legal battle helps or hurts Vance’s campaign remains to be seen. But one thing is for sure: the debate is far from over, and Vance is ready to take it from the stage to the courtroom.
