Voting-technology companies are answering false claims about election systems with two tools that do different jobs: public fact-checks about their own products, and defamation lawsuits against people and outlets that repeated those claims. U.S. agencies describe false claims about hacked voter data and cyber incidents as tactics within a wider influence playbook. “The next disinformation war” is this article’s framing, not an official campaign name. The government material describes tactics and dated assessments, not one named operation.
The short answer for most readers: a claim that voter data or voting machines were hacked is not established by the claim alone. Check who made it, what it covers, and what the election office and the court record say.
Does access to voter data prove that results were changed?
No. A claim that voter information was hacked is not, on its own, evidence that a voter-registration database was compromised, and it does not by itself show that votes or results were altered. In its September 12, 2024 notice on false claims of hacked voter information, the FBI and CISA wrote: “The reality is that having access to voter registration data is not by itself an indicator of a voter registration database compromise.” The agencies also noted that much voter information is publicly available, so obtaining it does not by itself show a breach.
The same notice said that, as of its publication, the agencies had no information that a cyberattack had prevented an election, changed voter registration information, compromised ballots, or disrupted vote counting or the timely transmission of unofficial results. That is a dated statement about the 2024 cycle. It is not a guarantee that no incident could occur later, and it does not vouch for any particular machine or county.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
Which tactics do federal agencies describe?
The FBI and CISA’s October 18, 2024 public-service announcement says foreign threat actors knowingly spread false or misleading narratives to undermine confidence in U.S. elections. The announcement describes four recurring tactics:
- Synthetic images, audio and video that imitate real people or events.
- Fabricated news stories, delivered through fabricated news sites and fake personas.
- Claims that cyber incidents affected how votes were cast or counted.
- Generative AI tools, which the agencies say lower the barrier to producing convincing material and distributing it quickly and at scale.
The agencies’ November 4, 2024 joint statement shows how this works in practice. It described a video falsely depicting an interview about alleged election fraud in Arizona, and it noted that Arizona’s secretary of state had refuted the video’s claim. The agencies advised the public to rely on official sources, particularly state and local election officials. Both notices assess the 2024 election cycle; they are not a catalogue of every operation since.
How have voting-technology companies responded?
Companies have used public rebuttals and litigation. Both respond to false claims about their products, but they are different kinds of evidence and carry different weight.
Company fact-check pages
Smartmatic publishes a fact-check page that addresses claims about its technology. Read it as the company’s own account rather than an independent assessment. The page states that Smartmatic’s technology was used only in Los Angeles County in the 2024 U.S. election.
Defamation settlements
In April 2024, Smartmatic settled its defamation case against One America News Network. According to the Associated Press, the settlement terms were confidential. AP also reported that Dominion settled its case against Fox News in 2023 for $787 million.
A September 2025 ruling on falsity
On September 27, 2025, AP reported that U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Bryan ruled that Mike Lindell had defamed Smartmatic with false statements about the company’s machines and the 2020 election. The court wrote: “The Court concludes that, based on the record presented, no reasonable trier of fact could find that any of the statements at issue are true.” The judge deferred a separate question: whether Smartmatic could prove actual malice, which it would need to establish to collect damages. The AP report is the source for this description; check the docket for any later developments.
Rank #4
- Express yourself with the design that fits your sense of humor, and political views, or promotes your cause and beliefs.
- Our high-quality bumper sticker is printed on durable 4mil vinyl with premium inks that resist the sun and elements, so your message will last for the long haul.
- These car decals are the perfect indulgence for your passion or make great novelty prank gifts for him or her.
- These car decals are the perfect indulgence for your passion or make great novelty prank gifts for him or her.
- Thoughtful Gift: Great for anyone who has a bumper, locker, skateboard, laptop, or any clean, smooth surface.
Sorting the evidence: what each source can and cannot show
The sources above answer different questions. The table separates what each can establish from what it cannot.
| Source | Who produced it | Can show | Cannot show |
|---|---|---|---|
| FBI and CISA notices (2024) | U.S. federal agencies | The agencies’ assessment at each notice date, such as no information that a cyberattack prevented an election as of September 12, 2024 | That no incident could occur later, or the status of any specific machine |
| Smartmatic fact-check page | Smartmatic | The company’s account of its technology and where it was used in 2024 | Independent verification or an audit |
| Smartmatic–OANN settlement (April 2024) | Smartmatic and OANN, as reported by AP | That the defamation case ended in a confidential settlement | An admission of liability, or a finding that the statements were true or false |
| Dominion–Fox News settlement (2023) | Dominion and Fox News, as reported by AP | The $787 million amount of that one settlement | The total cost of false election claims, or a court finding on the broadcast claims |
| Lindell ruling (AP, September 27, 2025) | U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Bryan | That the statements at issue were false and that Lindell defamed Smartmatic | Damages, or the actual-malice question the judge deferred |
| EAC 2025 Annual Report | U.S. Election Assistance Commission | The standard, version and certification date for three named systems | Whether any state or county has approved or uses those systems |
What voting-system certification does and does not show
Certification is a technical review against federal voluntary guidelines, and it is a separate question from public claims about machines. The Election Assistance Commission’s 2025 Annual Report, published January 2026, records the move to VVSG 2.0 (Voluntary Voting System Guidelines) and names three systems:
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesBest Value
| System | Vendor | Standard | Certification date (per the EAC report) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Verity Vanguard 1.0 | Hart InterCivic | VVSG 2.0 | July 2025; reported as the first system certified to VVSG 2.0 |
| VSR1 2.1 | Smartmatic | VVSG 2.0 | November 26, 2025 |
| Democracy Suite 5.20 | Dominion | VVSG 1.0 | February 4, 2025 |
The report says jurisdictions face further steps before a certified system can be deployed, including:
- State-level testing and certification
- Funding
- Procurement planning
- Staff training
- Public testing
How to check an election-security claim
Use this sequence to separate claims from evidence:
Quick Recap
- Classify the claim. Is it about voter-registration data, a cyber incident, ballot integrity, or actual vote totals? Each needs different evidence.
- Find the original speaker and date. Agency notices and court rulings are dated. A claim with no date or source may be out of context.
- Identify the jurisdiction and system. A claim about “voting machines” with no state, county, vendor or system name is hard to test.
- Check the official election office. The FBI and CISA point readers to official state and local election offices and recommend verifying claims before sharing them.
- Label company statements as company statements. A vendor can be accurate about its own products and still not be an independent source.
- Identify the legal stage. A settlement, a ruling on falsity and a damages decision are different outcomes. Check the court docket for the current status of any case.
- Match certification details exactly. Compare the system name, version and standard with the EAC report, then confirm whether the state or county has approved the system.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
