Rudy Giuliani Settles $148 Million Defamation Lawsuit With Georgia Election Workers

Historic Settlement Ends Years-Long Legal Battle

In a stunning conclusion to one of the most high-profile defamation cases in recent history, Rudy Giuliani has reached an agreement with two Georgia election workers that he defamed to settle the nearly $150 million judgment against him, in a deal that will allow him to keep his home and most valuable possessions. This landmark settlement brings closure to a case that has dominated headlines since 2021.

A settlement agreement was reached between Giuliani and the women in January, followed by the judgment being fully satisfied in February 2025, officially ending the $148 million defamation case. For Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea “Shaye” Moss, this resolution marks the end of what they called “a living nightmare” that lasted four years.

The case represents a watershed moment in election-related defamation law, establishing critical precedents for how false claims about election workers can result in massive financial consequences.

Background: The Freeman and Moss Defamation Case

The Origins of the Lawsuit

The legal saga began in December 2021 when Fulton County Georgia election workers Wandrea ArShaye (Shaye) Moss and her mother, Ruby Freeman, filed a landmark defamation lawsuit against Rudy Giuliani over false election fraud claims. The case emerged from Giuliani’s role in promoting baseless conspiracy theories following the 2020 presidential election.

Freeman and Moss, who worked as election workers during the 2020 election count in Fulton County, Georgia, became targets of a coordinated disinformation campaign. Giuliani repeatedly made false claims about their conduct during the election counting process, alleging they engaged in fraudulent activities.

Rudy Giuliani Settles $148 Million Defamation Lawsuit with Georgia Election Workers - Case Finally Resolved

The Legal Claims

The lawsuit included multiple claims—defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy—stemming from Giuliani’s false election fraud claims. The core legal argument centered on Giuliani’s repeated public statements that portrayed the women as criminals involved in election fraud.

The women’s legal team argued that these false statements:

Damaged their reputations in the community
Caused severe emotional distress and trauma
Resulted in threats and harassment
Interfered with their ability to work and live normally

Timeline of Legal Proceedings

The case progressed rapidly through the court system:

December 2021: Initial lawsuit filed
April 2022: Settlement reached with OAN defendants, who were removed from litigation in May 2022
August 2023: Default judgment secured on all claims
December 2023: Jury awarded $148,169,000 in damages, including $75M in punitive damages, $33,169,000 in defamation damages, and $40M in damages for infliction of emotional distress
January 2025: Settlement agreement reached
February 2025: Judgment fully satisfied

The $148 Million Verdict Breakdown

Jury Award Details

The eight-member jury awarded a total of $148,169,000 in damages, broken down as follows:

$75 million in punitive damages: Designed to punish Giuliani and deter similar conduct
$33.169 million in defamation damages: Compensation for harm to reputation
$40 million for emotional distress: Recognition of the severe psychological impact

This massive award reflected the jury’s assessment of both the severity of the harm caused and the need to send a strong message about the consequences of spreading false election-related claims.

Legal Significance of the Award

The verdict established several important legal precedents:

Recognition that false election fraud claims can result in substantial damages
Acknowledgment of the severe harm caused to individual election workers
Demonstration that even prominent political figures are not immune from defamation consequences
Setting a benchmark for future election-related defamation cases

Settlement Terms and Resolution

What the Settlement Includes

While the details have not been made public, Giuliani said the settlement allowed him to keep his properties in New York and Florida “and all of my personal belongings”. Key aspects of the settlement include:

Asset Protection for Giuliani:

Retention of New York property
Retention of Florida condominium
Preservation of personal belongings
Avoidance of complete financial ruin

Behavioral Commitments: As part of the settlement, Giuliani agreed to stop repeating the defamatory claims about the women. This represents a crucial element in preventing further harm to Freeman and Moss.

Case Resolution: The agreement resolves all pending litigation between Giuliani and the former election workers, Ruby Freeman and her daughter, Wandrea “Shaye” Moss. This comprehensive resolution eliminates any remaining legal disputes between the parties.

Impact on Planned Asset Seizures

The settlement had immediate practical effects on enforcement proceedings. It led to the cancellation of a trial that was supposed to begin Thursday to decide the ownership of his Florida condominium, demonstrating how the settlement prevented potentially more severe financial consequences for Giuliani.

Legal Analysis: Defamation Law in Election Context

Defamation Standards in Election Cases

This case illustrates key principles of defamation law as applied to election-related speech:

Elements of Defamation Established:

False statement of fact (not opinion)
Publication to third parties
Harm to reputation
Fault requirement (negligence or actual malice)

Special Considerations for Election Speech: While political speech receives First Amendment protection, false statements of fact about private individuals (like election workers) receive less protection than statements about public figures.

Precedential Value

The case establishes important precedents for:

Election Worker Protection: Demonstrating that false claims about election workers can result in substantial liability
Corporate Responsibility: The earlier OAN settlement shows media companies’ potential liability
Damage Calculations: Providing a framework for calculating damages in similar cases

Impact on the Victims: Freeman and Moss

Personal Toll of the Defamation

The impact on Freeman and Moss extended far beyond financial considerations. “The past four years have been a living nightmare,” Freeman and Moss said when announcing the settlement. “We have fought to clear our names, restore our reputations, and prove that we did nothing wrong”.

The women faced:

Death threats and harassment
Forced changes to their living situations
Damage to their professional reputations
Severe emotional distress
Loss of privacy and normal life

Congressional Testimony Impact

Freeman testified to Congress about the impact, saying “All because of lies. For me doing my job, same thing I’ve been doing forever”. This testimony highlighted how routine election work became the target of a national disinformation campaign.

Resolution and Moving Forward

With the settlement finalized, Freeman and Moss can begin to move forward. They expressed relief at reaching resolution in their journey, though the full impact of their ordeal will likely persist.

Broader Implications for Election Law

The case sends clear signals about the legal risks of spreading false information about election workers:

Deterrent Effect: The massive damages award serves as a warning to others
Protection for Election Workers: Establishes legal recourse for targeted individuals
Media Responsibility: Highlights potential liability for outlets spreading false information

Legislative and Regulatory Responses

The case has influenced broader discussions about:

Enhanced protections for election workers
Penalties for spreading election misinformation
Social media platform responsibilities
Campaign finance law implications

Other Election Defamation Cases

The Giuliani settlement doesn’t exist in isolation. Similar patterns of litigation have emerged:

Dominion Voting Systems Cases:

Fox News settled for $787.5 million in April 2023
Other media outlets faced similar claims
Established precedents for corporate liability

Smartmatic Litigation:

Ongoing cases against various media defendants
Similar patterns of false election fraud claims
Potential for additional substantial settlements

Comparison with Traditional Defamation Cases

This case differs from typical defamation litigation in several ways:

Scale of Impact: National audience for the defamatory statements
Political Context: Election-related speech receives heightened scrutiny
Victim Profile: Private individuals caught in public controversy
Damage Calculation: Unique factors in assessing harm

Related Legal Coverage:

Professional Legal Representation

Willkie Law Firm’s Role

Willkie successfully represented Fulton County Georgia election workers, with the firm’s pro bono team securing a favorable settlement after winning a $148.1 million defamation verdict. This pro bono representation highlights the legal profession’s commitment to protecting individual rights against powerful interests.

The legal team’s strategy included:

Thorough documentation of false statements
Comprehensive damage evidence
Strategic use of discovery processes
Effective jury presentation

Legal Strategy Lessons

The case provides insights into effective defamation litigation strategies:

Evidence Preservation: Careful documentation of false statements and their spread
Damage Documentation: Comprehensive evidence of harm to reputation and emotional wellbeing
Expert Testimony: Use of reputation and psychology experts
Settlement Timing: Strategic decisions about when to resolve versus continue litigation

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the total amount of the Giuliani defamation settlement?

The former New York City mayor reached a $148 million settlement with the Fulton County workers in January. While the exact terms remain confidential, this represents the full satisfaction of the jury verdict amount.

What were the original jury damages in the case?

The jury awarded $148,169,000 in total damages, including $75M in punitive damages, $33,169,000 in defamation damages, and $40M for infliction of emotional distress.

What assets does Giuliani get to keep under the settlement?

Giuliani said the settlement allowed him to keep his properties in New York and Florida “and all of my personal belongings”. The specific terms remain confidential, but the agreement prevented asset seizure.

What behavioral requirements does the settlement include?

As part of the settlement, Giuliani agreed to stop repeating the defamatory claims about the women. This represents a crucial element in preventing further harm.

How long did the legal case last?

The case lasted approximately three years, from the initial filing in December 2021 to the settlement satisfaction in February 2025. The jury verdict was reached in December 2023, with settlement negotiations concluding in early 2025.

The case establishes that false claims about election workers can result in massive damages, providing both legal precedent and deterrent effect for future similar cases. It demonstrates that even prominent political figures face significant liability for spreading false election-related information.

Were there other defendants in the original lawsuit?

Yes, the case originally included One America News Network (OAN) defendants, but they reached a settlement in April 2022 and were removed from litigation in May 2022.

What was the impact on Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss personally?

The women described the experience as “a living nightmare” lasting four years, during which they “fought to clear our names, restore our reputations, and prove that we did nothing wrong”. They faced harassment, threats, and severe disruption to their lives.

Legal Lessons and Takeaways

For Legal Practitioners

This case offers several lessons for attorneys handling defamation matters:

Document Everything: Comprehensive evidence collection is crucial
Calculate Damages Carefully: Consider all forms of harm, including emotional distress
Consider Settlement Timing: Strategic decisions about when to resolve versus continue
Pro Bono Impact: High-profile pro bono cases can achieve significant justice

For Media and Public Figures

The case demonstrates clear risks for spreading false information:

Fact-Checking Importance: Verification before publication is essential
Legal Liability: Even prominent figures face substantial consequences
Settlement Benefits: Early resolution can prevent more severe consequences
Behavioral Commitments: Agreements to stop harmful behavior are standard

For Election Workers and Officials

The case provides important protections:

Legal Recourse Available: Defamation law provides remedies for false attacks
Substantial Damages Possible: Courts recognize the severe harm caused
Professional Support: Legal organizations provide pro bono assistance
Precedent Protection: Future cases can cite this precedent

Future Outlook and Continuing Developments

While the Giuliani case is resolved, similar litigation continues across the country. Other cases involving false election fraud claims remain pending, with this settlement potentially influencing resolution strategies.

Legislative Responses

State and federal lawmakers continue considering enhanced protections for election workers, potentially including:

Criminal penalties for threatening election workers
Enhanced civil remedies for harassment
Funding for security measures
Training programs on legal protections

Industry Changes

The settlement may accelerate changes in how media outlets and public figures approach election-related reporting:

Enhanced fact-checking procedures
Legal review of election-related content
Insurance considerations for defamation liability
Training on election misinformation risks

Conclusion: A Landmark Resolution with Lasting Impact

The resolution of the Rudy Giuliani defamation lawsuit represents more than just the end of a single legal case—it marks a turning point in how the legal system addresses false election-related speech. The satisfaction of the $148 million judgment sends a clear message that spreading false information about election workers carries serious legal and financial consequences.

For Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, this settlement provides both financial compensation and, perhaps more importantly, official recognition of the harm they suffered. Their courage in pursuing this case has created important protections for election workers nationwide.

The case establishes crucial precedents that will influence election law, defamation litigation, and media responsibility for years to come. As democracy faces ongoing challenges, the legal system’s robust response to false election claims provides a foundation for protecting both individual rights and electoral integrity.

Legal practitioners should study this case carefully, as it provides a roadmap for similar litigation while demonstrating the substantial damages available in appropriate circumstances. The comprehensive settlement resolution shows that even complex, high-profile defamation cases can reach satisfactory conclusions for all parties.

This historic case will undoubtedly be referenced in future election-related defamation litigation, establishing it as a cornerstone precedent in the evolving intersection of election law, defamation, and free speech rights.

This analysis is based on publicly available court filings, settlement announcements, and credible news reports. For specific legal advice regarding defamation or election-related legal issues, consult with qualified legal counsel familiar with constitutional law, defamation, and election law.

Sources:

U.S. District Court filings in Freeman v. Giuliani
Settlement announcements and court documents
Legal analysis from constitutional law experts
Willkie Law Firm case documentation
Congressional testimony records

About the Author

Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah