Netflix has asked a federal court to throw out Tyra Banks’ defamation lawsuit over her portrayal in “Reality Check: Inside America’s Next Top Model,” arguing the longtime host is contesting ordinary editorial choices rather than pointing to anything factually false.
The streamer filed its motion to dismiss Friday, paired with an anti-SLAPP motion aimed at ending the case before it reaches discovery. A hearing has been set for October 30. Netflix’s attorneys at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher argued that Banks, who created, hosted and executive produced 24 seasons of “America’s Next Top Model” between 2003 and 2018, made the same sorts of decisions about what footage to include and omit that she now objects to in the documentary.
Banks sued Netflix and directors Mor Loushy and Daniel Sivan in June, alleging the three-part series manipulated her interview to suggest she knowingly let a contestant’s sexual assault allegation go unaddressed and had no memory of it when asked on camera. The claim centers on Shandi Sullivan, who said during the show’s second season that she was assaulted.
Banks says she sat for roughly three and a half hours of interviews, of which the filmmakers used about 16 minutes, and that the edited version omitted context showing she remembered Sullivan’s account. She is seeking a jury trial and unspecified damages, including for harm she says the series caused her ice cream brand, Smize & Dream.
Netflix’s filing frames the dispute differently, stating that Banks understood editorial discretion from her own years running the show and that turning “that editorial lens back on ANTM and Banks” does not amount to defamation.
A company spokesperson said the filmmakers “thoroughly interviewed the people behind America’s Next Top Model” and fairly presented every participant’s perspective, adding that Netflix will continue to defend the series.
Banks’ Attorneys Reject Netflix’s Characterization
Banks’ attorneys, Tom Clare and Clare Locke, have pushed back on Netflix’s characterization of the lawsuit as a dispute over creative or editorial control.
In a statement provided to Gazettely, the attorneys said the case instead centers on whether the documentary’s editing materially changed the meaning of Banks’ words and gave viewers an inaccurate account of what happened.
“Tyra Banks’ lawsuit raises a simple question: can viewers trust that a documentary presented as fact fairly represents what happened and what people actually said?” Clare and Locke said.
The attorneys argued that nobody disputes that documentaries involve editing, but that the issue is whether those editing decisions crossed the line into materially distorting the truth.
“This is not about Tyra being ‘dissatisfied’ with an edit, nor is it about wanting creative control,” they said. “It is about whether viewers were given an accurate representation of her words and the facts.”
Banks’ lawyers also challenged Netflix to release the complete, unedited interview Banks gave to the filmmakers, arguing that doing so would allow the public to compare her full comments with the material that appeared in the documentary.
“Netflix has Tyra’s complete, unedited interview,” the attorneys said. “If Netflix stands behind the accuracy of its documentary, it should release that interview in full and let viewers judge for themselves.”
The attorneys concluded by accusing Netflix of withholding recorded material that they say could establish what Banks actually said.
What Happens Next
Court records show Banks did not limit which topics the interviewer could raise during her sit-down, and Netflix contends she agreed to standard participant terms before filming began.
The dispute now turns in part on whether Banks has adequately alleged that the documentary made false statements about her, rather than merely presenting an edited or unfavorable version of events. Netflix is seeking dismissal before the case proceeds to discovery, while Banks is asking for the lawsuit to continue toward a jury trial.
The court is scheduled to hear the motions on October 30.
