A D.C. superior court judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit [text, PDF] brought against Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer.

Steele was sued in April by three Russian business magnates for libel, a year after his dossier alleging Russia’s involvement with the Trump campaign was published.

Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven and German Khan claimed [Guardian report] that the contents of the dossier were libelous because it speculated that they tried to influence the 2016 US presidential election.

They argued that Steele’s decision to write about the alleged relationship between Alfa, the Kremlin and the election was a malicious act. However, the judgment stated that Steele’s opinion derived from information about the Russian billionaires’ close relationship with President Vladimir Putin [personal website] given to him by his sources.

Judge Anthony Epstein wrote:

Plaintiffs do not offer any evidence that defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded substantial information, that no conceivable possibility existed that plaintiffs were involved in any such Russian interference. The failure to include supporting facts does not support a reasonable inference by clear and convincing evidence that defendants knew the statements were false or acted in reckless disregard to their falsity: lacking supporting information is different from having opposing information; and although lack of evidence may establish negligence, negligence is constitutionally insufficient to show the recklessness that is required for a finding of actual malice.

Epstein agreed that Steele was engaging in speculation but not to an extent to make it actionable under the First Amendment.

The Russian billionaires’ lawyers will likely appeal [BBC report] the decision.