Tyra Banks’ Lawyer Fires Back After Netflix Moves to Dismiss Defamation Lawsuit

Tyra Banks has spent decades shaping her public image as the driving force behind ‘America’s Next Top Model,’ a role that made her one of reality television’s most recognizable figures across all 24 seasons. That legacy has now become the center of a heated legal battle, one that pits Banks directly against Netflix over how she was portrayed in the streamer’s recent documentary revisiting the franchise’s history and its most controversial moments.

Banks originally filed her defamation lawsuit against Netflix back in June, accusing the platform and directors Mor Loushy and Daniel Sivan of falsely depicting her as insensitive toward a contestant who said she had been a victim of sexual assault. Central to her complaint is the claim that producers used only around 16 minutes of a three-and-a-half-hour interview she sat for, arguing that selective editing stripped her comments of context and reassembled them into a misleading narrative.

That dispute escalated further this weekend after Netflix filed a motion in Los Angeles Superior Court on Friday, August 14, asking the court to dismiss Banks’ claims entirely. Banks’ attorneys, Tom Clare and Clare Locke, responded directly to that filing in a statement given to Variety, arguing that Netflix’s defense misses the actual point of her lawsuit. “No one disputes that documentaries are edited,” the attorneys said. “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’ complaints amount to nothing more than ordinary editorial disagreements rather than actionable defamation. According to the filing, Banks herself made similar editorial decisions throughout her time creating, hosting, and executive producing ‘America’s Next Top Model,’ choosing what footage to include, what to cut, and how to frame competing narratives across the show’s run.

Central to Netflix’s argument is a release Banks reportedly signed after her interview, which the company says granted filmmakers broad editing rights and explicitly stated she had no right to review or approve the finished documentary. Netflix’s attorneys, from the firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, filed both an anti-SLAPP motion and a formal motion to dismiss, with a hearing on those motions currently targeted for October 30.

A Netflix spokesperson defended the documentary’s directors directly in a statement, saying they thoroughly interviewed the people behind the franchise and fairly presented Banks’ perspective alongside every other participant featured in the series. The company added that it stands behind the documentary and intends to continue defending it vigorously as the case moves forward.

With both sides now formally on record, the case is likely to hinge heavily on whether the court views Netflix’s editing choices as standard documentary practice or as something that crossed into genuinely defamatory territory. Banks is seeking a jury trial and unspecified damages, according to her original complaint, meaning the dispute could stretch on for months before reaching any resolution.

For now, neither side appears willing to back down, with Banks’ legal team framing the case around journalistic accuracy while Netflix continues to characterize the lawsuit as an attempt to relitigate standard creative control. With an October hearing date now set, both parties will have several months to prepare their arguments before a judge weighs in.

Have something to add? Let us know in the comments!