A Florida judge has allowed US president’s defamation lawsuit over Panorama editing of January 6 speech to proceed, but dismisses separate unfair trade practices claim.

A federal judge in Florida has cleared the way for US President Donald Trump’s $10bn (£7.5bn) defamation lawsuit against the BBC to proceed, rejecting the broadcaster’s attempt to have the case dismissed.

However, the judge threw out a separate claim brought under Florida’s unfair trade practices legislation, delivering a mixed ruling in a closely watched legal dispute over the BBC’s editing of a speech Trump delivered shortly before the January 6 Capitol riot in 2021.

Judge Jeffrey Kuntz ruled on Tuesday that Trump’s allegations of defamation were sufficient to allow the proceedings to continue. His decision does not establish that the BBC acted unlawfully, nor does it determine whether Trump suffered reputational or financial damage. Instead, it means the president will have the opportunity to pursue his allegations through the next stages of the legal process.

In his written order, Judge Kuntz made clear that the central questions of liability and damages remain unresolved. “Whether President Trump can prove these claims and establish he sustained damages at summary judgment or trial is left for another day,” he wrote, emphasising that the court had not yet reached a conclusion on the merits of the case.

The lawsuit centres on a Panorama programme in which the BBC edited together two separate sections of a speech Trump delivered outside the US Capitol on 6 January 2021. Trump alleges that the broadcaster deliberately manipulated his words, creating a misleading impression that he had directly encouraged violence during the events that unfolded at the Capitol.

In his legal complaint, filed in Florida, Trump accused the BBC of “intentionally, maliciously and deceptively doctoring” his speech. The president argues that the programme misrepresented his remarks and damaged his reputation by presenting an edited version that altered the impression of what he had said.

The BBC has previously acknowledged that the editing was inappropriate and issued an apology, conceding that the broadcast had created “the mistaken impression that Trump made a direct call for violent action”. However, the broadcaster has maintained that this admission does not amount to legal liability for defamation.

In seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed, the BBC argued that the Panorama programme did not satisfy the legal requirements for a defamation claim and was not made available to audiences in the United States. The broadcaster’s position was that the programme could not provide the legal basis for Trump’s allegations under the circumstances.

Despite those arguments, Judge Kuntz concluded that the defamation claim could proceed. His decision represents a significant procedural development for Trump, although it should not be interpreted as a finding that the BBC is guilty of defamation.

The judge also dismissed Trump’s second claim, which alleged that the BBC had breached Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Kuntz ruled that the documentary did not constitute commercial speech and therefore could not support the unfair trade practices claim. This part of the ruling narrows the scope of the lawsuit, leaving the defamation allegation as its central focus.

Trump welcomed the decision, describing it as a “huge victory” in a post on his Truth Social platform on Tuesday. His reaction reflects the significance he attaches to keeping the case alive, particularly given the substantial financial damages sought in the lawsuit.

The BBC, meanwhile, expressed surprise at the court’s decision but said it respected the authority of the judiciary. A spokesperson stated: “We are surprised by this decision but respect the Court’s authority and note the case will now proceed to the next stage.”

The broadcaster added that it remained confident in its legal position and would continue to defend itself through the appropriate judicial process.

The ruling places the BBC in the position of having to defend its editorial decisions in a US court, while leaving unresolved the wider questions surrounding the accuracy of the Panorama broadcast, the legal threshold for defamation and whether Trump can demonstrate that the editing caused him compensable harm.

Although the president has characterised the ruling as a major victory, the legal battle is far from over. The court has allowed his defamation allegations to proceed, but Trump must still establish that the BBC’s editing amounted to actionable defamation and prove the damages he claims to have suffered. For the BBC, the case now moves into a further stage of litigation, with the broadcaster maintaining that it has a strong defence.