information flows due to strategic deceptions.” 10 Furthermore, some speech that is intended to deceive or cause harm (thereby meeting the definitions outlined above) is still legally permissible. Establishing the boundaries between what constitutes harmful but legal speech and speech that is legally violative is a core contention in many of the cases considered in this paper. The lack of legal definitions means that the way disinformation cases come before courts is not necessarily uniform, as the case law demonstrates. Our case analysis demonstrates three broad types of disinformation issues that come before the courts: 1. Cases that allege harm to electoral processes, contestants, or officials as a result of prohibited speech upon which the court must issue a judgment (whether on grounds of hate speech, defamation, electoral disinformation, etc.). Examples include Dominion Voting Systems, Inc. v. Fox News, Senior Advocate Dinesh Tripathi v. Election Commission of Nepal (#NoNotAgain Campaign), Decision no. 2018-773 DC of France’s Constitutional Council, and 2016Hun-Ma90 (Case on Restricting Online Media from Publishing Columns, etc. Written by Candidates for Public Official Election). 2. Unfounded cases alleging irregularity in electoral processes – which is a disinformation tactic in and of itself. These are not cases that deal with disinformation; rather, they deal with election processes in a way that is meant to deceive or manipulate public perception of the integrity of the processes. Examples include Presidential Election Petition E005, E001, E002, E003, E004, E007 & E008 of 2022 (Consolidated) (Kenya), Appeal No. CA/PEPC/03/2023; CA/PEPC/04/2023; and CA/PEPC/05/2023 (Nigeria). 3. Overt or covert disinformation campaigns directed at the courts to undermine their credibility. This challenge is unrelated to cases that need to be decided by the court; rather it is a separate discussion about how courts can engage in reputation management and preserving public trust. Examples include Civil Petition No. 0601958-94.2022.6.00.0000 (Brazil), Matter of Giuliani, King v. Whitmer, and O’Rourke v. Dominion Voting Systems. In efforts to understand the notion of disinformation as a justiciable issue, our case law analysis consistently shows that the concept of “disinformation” always contains some element of intentionality (i.e., that actors or adversaries spread the information with knowledge of what they are doing and in a deliberate manner), and they do it to cause harm. Bennett, W. L., & Livingston, S. (2018). The disinformation order: Disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication, 33(2), 122–139. 10 5