Appeals court slashes Alex Jones’s Sandy Hook judgment from $50M to $1.5M

A Texas court on Friday cut the amount Infowars founder Alex Jones was ordered to pay to a family affected by the Sandy Hook shooting after they were subject to harassment when he claimed the attack was a hoax.

The Texas 3rd Court of Appeals ruled unanimously to reduce the damages awarded to Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis from more than $45 million to $1.5 million, according to court documents .

“The Court modifies the trial court’s judgment by reducing the exemplary damages award consistent with the statutory cap, resulting in exemplary damages awards of $750,000 to Scarlett Lewis and of $750,000 to Neil Heslin,” Chief Justice of the 3rd Court of Appeals of Texas Darlene Byrne wrote in her opinion Friday.

It found that there was no evidence that showed the harassment the couple endured from the claims Jones made allowed for the cap to be exceeded.

The ruling did not touch the $4.1 million Jones owes in compensatory damages to Heslin and Lewis, who lost their 6-year-old son in the shooting. Their son was among 20 children and six educators killed in the 2012 attack in Newtown, Conn.

On Friday, Jones said his legal team will continue to appeal the case to the state Supreme Court to get the remaining damages thrown out.

The ruling also does not affect the $1.25 billion Jones still has to pay to other families in Connecticut after he was found to be liable for harassment they endured when he claimed the mass shooting never happened.

The Supreme Court in 2025 turned down Jones’s petition to avoid paying the sum, which had plunged him into bankruptcy.

Jones has yet to make any payments in either state as he continues to appeal the damages amounts and the attempt to liquidate his company, Free Speech Systems (FSS), which oversees Infowars.

The Texas court in May had paused efforts made by satirical outlet The Onion from taking over FSS and Infowars. The deal would have given the outlet temporary authority and use of its trademarks.

Jones has fought to retain control over the company and called the deal “illegal.”