Tyra Banks’ Lawyer Responds After Netflix Seeks Dismissal of Defamation Lawsuit
Tyra Banks has dedicated decades to crafting her public persona as the iconic host of ‘America’s Next Top Model,’ a role that has made her a household name throughout all 24 seasons. This legacy is now at the center of a contentious legal dispute involving Banks and Netflix, stemming from how she was depicted in the streaming service’s recent documentary that revisits the franchise’s history and its most controversial moments.
In June, Banks filed a defamation lawsuit against Netflix, claiming that the platform and directors Mor Loushy and Daniel Sivan misrepresented her as insensitive to a contestant who alleged she was a victim of sexual assault. A key aspect of her complaint is the assertion that only about 16 minutes of a three-and-a-half-hour interview she provided was used, arguing that selective editing distorted her comments and created a misleading narrative.
The situation intensified over the weekend when Netflix filed a motion in Los Angeles Superior Court on Friday, August 14, seeking to have Banks’ claims dismissed entirely. In response, Banks’ attorneys, Tom Clare and Clare Locke, issued a statement to Variety, contending that Netflix’s defense overlooks the core issue of her lawsuit. “No one disputes that documentaries are edited,” the attorneys stated. “The question is whether those edits materially distorted the truth. This is not about Tyra being ‘dissatisfied’ with an edit, nor is it about wanting creative control. It is about whether viewers were given an accurate representation of her words and the facts.”
Netflix’s motion argues that Banks’ grievances are merely standard editorial disagreements rather than actionable defamation. According to the filing, Banks herself made similar editorial choices during her time creating, hosting, and executive producing ‘America’s Next Top Model,’ deciding what footage to include, what to cut, and how to frame competing narratives throughout the show’s history.
A crucial element of Netflix’s argument is a release that Banks reportedly signed after her interview, which the company claims granted filmmakers extensive editing rights and explicitly stated she had no right to review or approve the final documentary. Netflix’s legal team from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher filed both an anti-SLAPP motion and a formal motion to dismiss, with a hearing on these motions scheduled for October 30.
A spokesperson for Netflix defended the documentary’s directors, stating that they conducted thorough interviews with the franchise’s key figures and fairly represented Banks’ perspective alongside other participants featured in the series. The company affirmed its support for the documentary and its intention to vigorously defend it as the case progresses.
As both parties have now formally stated their positions, the case is likely to hinge on whether the court perceives Netflix’s editing choices as standard documentary practice or as crossing into genuinely defamatory territory. Banks is pursuing a jury trial and unspecified damages, according to her original complaint, indicating that this dispute could continue for months before reaching a resolution.
Currently, neither side seems inclined to relent, with Banks’ legal team framing the case around journalistic accuracy while Netflix characterizes the lawsuit as an attempt to revisit standard creative control. With an October hearing date set, both parties will have several months to prepare their arguments before a judge makes a ruling.
Have something to add? Let us know in the comments!