MyPillow mogul Mike Lindell speaks to his supporters ahead of his defamation trial verdict on June 16, 2025 (X/@realMikeLindell).
A federal jury in Colorado on Monday afternoon found MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell liable for defamation, siding with a former Dominion Voting Systems employee who alleged that the Donald Trump loyalist caused real-world harm with 2020 stolen election conspiracies he aired at his 2021 “cyber symposium,” an event that also proved costly for Lindell in the form of an ill-fated and boomeranging “Prove Mike Wrong Challenge.”
In the end, the jury found Lindell liable for defaming Dr. Eric Coomer, along with his company FrankSpeech for participating in a civil conspiracy to do the same, leaving the MyPillow CEO on the hook for $2.3 million — a far cry from the $60-plus million Coomer’s team asked for but nonetheless a loss for Lindell, according to Kyle Clark of 9NEWS.
It wasn’t a total loss for Lindell, however, as MyPillow escaped liability — reportedly as Coomer’s legal team requested.
In an interview with former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani on LindellTV after the verdict, Lindell offered his reaction, saying: “It was awesome.”
RUDY GIULIANI SHOW
— LindellTV (@RealLindellTV) June 16, 2025
Claiming that MyPillow was “100% vindicated” and decrying “lawfare,” Lindell declared the day a “huge victory.”
“This was a huge victory for our country. MyPillow was sued for no reason and they won! 100%!” he said.
Before the interview began, Giuliani remarked on his eponymous show that the $2.3 million penalty was “measly” and “like peanuts compared to what they were asking.”
“He just kicked them all around the courtroom,” Giuliani said of Lindell. He also predicted the case would get “reversed so fast it’s going to become a precedent for future protection of our First Amendment rights.”
Earlier on Monday, the jury, which had been deliberating since Friday, reportedly asked a question about whether it was up to them or the judge to decide potential damages — evidently not a positive sign for Lindell and his streaming platform and website, FrankSpeech.
Coomer filed his first lawsuit as far back as December 2020, alleging that a collection of right-wing media outlets, the Trump campaign, former Trump attorneys Sidney Powell and Giuliani, and individual media personalties, including podcaster Joseph Oltmann, played a role in falsely tarring Coomer as an “Antifa” activist who vowed on a conference call to ensure Joe Biden would win the 2020 election no matter what.
In both that case and the one we now discuss, the plaintiff claimed that Oltmann “fabricated” a conspiracy whereby Coomer was labeled a “traitor,” leading to “multiple credible death threats.” Lindell and his businesses effectively promoted that conspiracy by inviting Oltmann to the stage at the ensuing cyber symposium, which was streamed online, Coomer argued in his 2022 federal complaint against Lindell, MyPillow, Inc., FrankSpeech LLC.
More Law&Crime coverage: ‘I have nothing to hide. I am a former crack addict’: Mike Lindell plans to testify at his billion-dollar defamation trial
From Coomer’s lawsuit:
Since aligning himself with Oltmann, Lindell has publicly accused Dr. Coomer of being “a traitor to the United States.” He has claimed, without evidence, that Dr. Coomer committed treason and that he should turn himself into the authorities. He has published numerous statements asserting that Dr. Coomer is a criminal, that both Dr. Coomer and his counsel are part of a “criminal crime family,” and that Dr. Coomer “did crimes against the United States and quite frankly all of humanity.” Defendants have published these numerous false statements, defamatory interviews, and other dishonest content maligning Dr. Coomer on the website frankspeech.com often alongside a sales pitch for products from MyPillow. In addition, Defendants further made claims against Dr. Coomer a centerpiece of a failed “Cyber Symposium” that they organized, produced, and broadcast around the world.
Lindell had long maintained that he has “done nothing wrong,” that he truly believes his claims about the election, and that both he and his allies have instead been persecuted and subjected to “lawfare” for simply asking questions about the integrity of the 2020 election, in violation of their First Amendment rights.
In a video and post shared Monday on X ahead of the verdict, Lindell remarked upon the gravity of his situation: “Today the jury decides.”
“I really believe, God willing, that this will be the gateway to securing our elections, bringing back free speech and the American dream, and saving our country,” he said, before asking his supporters for prayers and directing them to the website for his legal defense fund.
Oltmann, a Lindell trial witness, on Monday defended Lindell in a lengthy post tagging the president’s official account and Pam Bondi, the U.S. attorney general, on X. He also claimed that the “crooked” and “communist” federal judge in the case “stacked the deck” to doom Lindell financially, characterizing that as a “disgusting example of judicial malpractice” and an impeachable offense.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
“I said I would keep quiet but I cannot any longer… The judge in the Mike Lindell lawsuit is a paid communist operative and what she has done is nothing short of despicable,” Oltmann wrote of U.S. District Judge Nina Wang, a 2022 appointee of then-President Biden, while misspelling her last name as “Wong.”
“She overruled nearly every objection and sustained 98% of the objections by the Coomer lawyers,” he added later. “When I was testifying she stared at the Coomer attorneys when I went into great detail about Coomer because she was pissed they were not objecting. When they finally objected she had this look of relief and simply said, sustained…. Again. It was obvious… and yet, this crooked judge was allowed to bully and do what judges are forbidden to do.”
In late April, Wang dressed down Lindell’s defense for submitting an error-filled, AI-generated filing which apparently cited to nonexistent cases. The defense responded by attempting to make the case that the judge’s “scathing” rebuke made it “impossible” to be ready in time for trial.
