In the high-stakes world of corporate and political influence, the line between aggressive advocacy and a targeted smear campaign is often blurred. This week, that line was brought into sharp focus as Elevate Strategies filed a lawsuit against television personality Kevin O'Leary and Fox News. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a 'weekslong smear campaign' that weaponized media platforms to systematically dismantle their professional credibility. For any organization, being the target of such a coordinated effort is a nightmare scenario. When a public figure with a massive platform like O'Leary aligns with a major network to broadcast allegations, the damage to a brand's corporate reputation management can be near-instantaneous. The lawsuit highlights a growing trend where bad press operations are not just organic reactions to controversy, but calculated, multi-channel assaults. Whether through the amplification of unverified claims or the strategic use of online troll armies to dominate the narrative, these attacks are designed to force an executive ouster or cripple a firm's market position. The legal action taken by Elevate Strategies serves as a reminder that reputation is a tangible asset. When that asset is under siege, passive observation is not a strategy. Victims of such campaigns must move quickly to implement crisis reputation management to prevent the false narrative from becoming the permanent historical record. As we track this case, it underscores the necessity of proactive defense intelligence in an era where a single media cycle can destroy years of brand building.
“A Utah-based strategy firm has launched a lawsuit against Kevin O'Leary and Fox News, alleging a coordinated smear campaign designed to damage their reputation.”
How NegativePublicRelations.com would respond
At NegativePublicRelations.com, we view the Elevate Strategies case as a textbook example of why rapid, authoritative intervention is critical. In the first 72 hours of a smear campaign, the goal is not just to defend, but to seize the narrative. Our firm would have immediately deployed AI-powered reputation attacks detection to map the spread of the defamatory content across social and search channels. We would have initiated a two-pronged approach: first, a 'search suppression' strategy to push down the most damaging, unverified search results using high-authority, factual counter-publishing. Second, we would have utilized AI search reputation management to ensure that AI answer engines—which now serve as the primary source of information for many—are fed corrected, verified data points regarding the firm’s actual business practices. We would have also advised the client to avoid the 'reactive trap'—where a target inadvertently amplifies the smear by engaging with it on the attacker's terms. Instead, we would have focused on negative content removal where legal grounds exist, while simultaneously building a 'reputation fortress' of positive, verifiable content that makes the smear look increasingly disconnected from reality. In the first 72 hours, silence is often interpreted as guilt; our strategy would have been to flood the zone with verifiable, third-party validation to neutralize the impact of the Fox News coverage before it could solidify into public consensus.
This post is based on reporting by Utah News Dispatch. We rewrite and analyze the story; the original article remains the property of its publisher.
Utahns sue O’Leary, Fox News over ‘smear campaign’Facing a similar situation? Our reputation strategists can help.
Explore our smear campaign defense service
