‘Shark Tank’ Star Kevin O’Leary Sued for Defamation Over Claims Linking Utah Data Center Critics to China

Television personality and entrepreneur Kevin O’Leary is facing a defamation lawsuit after publicly accusing critics of his proposed artificial intelligence data center project in Utah of having ties to China.

The lawsuit, filed last Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, alleges that O’Leary made false and damaging statements during multiple media appearances, including several interviews on Fox News, causing significant reputational, financial, and emotional harm to the individuals and organizations he targeted.

The legal action was brought by Alliance for a Better Utah, Elevate Strategies, political consultant Gabrielle Finlayson, and strategist Josh Kanter. According to the complaint, O’Leary repeatedly suggested that opponents of his AI data center proposal were acting on behalf of, or were financially connected to, the Chinese government. The plaintiffs argue those allegations were entirely unfounded and were broadcast to millions of viewers despite the absence of any evidence supporting the claims.

At the center of the lawsuit are a series of television appearances O’Leary made during May and June, when debate intensified over plans to build an AI-focused data center in Utah. The complaint identifies at least 10 separate media appearances in which O’Leary allegedly repeated similar accusations. Among them were five appearances on Fox News over three weeks, where the businessman claimed that some of the project's critics were effectively serving as "proxies for the Chinese government."

According to the filing, O’Leary’s statements portrayed them as individuals acting in the interests of a foreign government without any factual basis. They argue that such accusations were especially damaging because they implied disloyalty and foreign influence during a period of heightened concern over U.S.-China relations and national security.

Finlayson and Kanter claim they experienced severe personal and professional consequences after O’Leary's comments gained widespread attention. The lawsuit alleges they suffered substantial reputational damage that affected their careers, leading to significant economic losses. It further claims both individuals endured severe emotional distress and became the targets of ongoing threats to their physical safety as the accusations circulated publicly.

Court documents also name Fox News as a defendant, arguing the network played a key role in amplifying O’Leary’s allegations. According to the filing, Fox repeatedly invited O’Leary onto its programs despite the absence of evidence supporting his claims and allowed him to present the accusations to a national audience without meaningful challenge or qualification. The plaintiffs argue the network bears responsibility because it continued to provide O’Leary with a platform even though his assertions lacked factual support.

In response to the lawsuit, Fox News Media defended its handling of the broadcasts. In a statement, the company said it had publicly corrected the record on every program in which O’Leary made the disputed comments and noted that those corrections were widely publicized. Fox also stated that it intends to vigorously defend itself against the legal claims.

O’Leary has not publicly commented on the lawsuit since it was filed. However, the entrepreneur previously addressed the controversy in an Instagram post published last month. While he stopped short of apologizing for his earlier remarks, O’Leary acknowledged that he lacked evidence to support the allegations he had made.

In that statement, O’Leary wrote that he wished to clarify that he had "no evidence" that Alliance for a Better Utah, Elevate Strategies, Gabrielle Finlayson, Taylor Knuth, or Josh Kanter were funded by China or by the Chinese Communist Party.

The clarification represented a notable shift from his earlier television appearances, where he had suggested the project's opponents were acting as proxies for the Chinese government. However, the plaintiffs argue that the later statement does not undo the damage caused by the original accusations, which had already reached a broad television audience and spread across multiple media platforms.

Defamation claims involving public figures often hinge on whether challenged statements were presented as factual assertions, whether they were false, and whether they caused measurable harm. The plaintiffs maintain that O’Leary’s allegations satisfied those standards, arguing the claims were presented as fact despite having no supporting evidence and resulted in lasting personal and professional consequences.