Tyra Banks filed a defamation lawsuit towards Netflix on Saturday, claiming that her portrayal within the America’s Subsequent High Mannequin docuseries, Reality Check, which the streamer launched in February, was edited to assist a false narrative.
Within the go well with, filed in U.S. District Courtroom for the Central District of California, Banks’ attorneys say she participated in a three-and-a-half-hour interview in regards to the present’s legacy and selections she would method in a different way at the moment. However, the go well with claims, simply 16 minutes of her feedback had been used within the three-part docuseries they usually had been”stripped of context and reassembled to assist a false and defamatory narrative unrelated to what she truly expressed.” Her attorneys argue that the accountability she took for a few of High Mannequin‘s most controversial moments was edited out.
“Worse, the false narrative the producers constructed — through selective editing, deliberate omission and surgical manipulation of continuous footage — included that Ms. Banks knowingly allowed a contestant to be sexually assaulted on her show, exploited that contestant’s trauma for ratings and then could not even remember it when asked,” the lawsuit states. “That narrative about Ms. Banks is a complete fabrication — one that Netflix streamed to a global audience of millions.”
Particularly, the lawsuit takes difficulty with how Banks is proven responding to cycle two contestant Shandi Sullivan’s alleged sexual assault, which she discusses within the present, saying she was blacked out when she’s proven moving into mattress with a male mannequin and accusing the exhibits manufacturing workforce of framing the incident as her dishonest on her boyfriend as an alternative of what she thought-about to be assault.
When Banks is requested about Sullivan in Actuality Verify, she claims she had no involvement in manufacturing and enhancing on the sequence and was unaware that Sullivan viewers what occurred to her as assault. Certainly, she’s proven being requested “You remember the story with Shandi?” and Banks responds “um,” earlier than the display screen cuts to black, making a “devastating and deliberate” implication that Banks couldn’t keep in mind the assault.
“But that was false,” Banks’ attorneys declare. “The full footage of Ms. Banks’ interview reveals two things that the producers cut out and did not show viewers in Episode 1: before the upward glance, Ms. Banks nods—affirmatively, unmistakably—and immediately says, ‘I do remember her story.’ By carving the nod out of the middle of the sequence and cutting off Ms. Banks’ comment at the end, the producers ensured that viewers would see only the lie and not the truth.”
“Defendants edited the Netflix Series to make it appear that Ms. Banks knew she was being asked about a sexual assault and was intentionally trying to evade the topic,” the lawsuit states. “Ms. Banks respects Ms. Sullivan’s perspective and the courage it takes for Ms. Sullivan and others to speak up.”
“Ms. Banks wishes somebody involved with the Netflix series would have told her what Ms. Sullivan shared with them,” the go well with continues. “But they deliberately chose not to.”
Within the lawsuit, Banks additionally responds to the “hurtful” allegations that she hadn’t gotten in contact with High Mannequin decide Miss J Alexander after his stroke, which he opens up about on the docuseries.
“Had the producers informed Ms. Banks that part of the Netflix series narrative would include Miss J saying that Ms. Banks never visited him in the hospital, Ms. Banks would have explained that she had been living in Australia for two-and-a-half years,” the lawsuit states.
And, the go well with contends, she would have proven textual content chains with Miss J and his household, revealing how she tried to get in contact with him, after she heard of his stroke.
“She would have shown how hard she tried to get in touch with Miss J personally when she had initially heard the news of his stroke,” the go well with states. “And he or she would have proven the textual content message that arrived from Miss J’s member of the family who finally texted again months later and apologized for not responding to Ms. Banks’ texts and a number of calls sooner because of her being centered on getting him higher.
“Ms. Banks would have explained that after that contact, she and Miss J spent three years communicating. They spoke live on the phone at least once. They exchanged voice notes, many photos, and video messages,” the lawsuit continues. “They texted numerous times. As recently as Christmas Day 2025, Ms. Banks and Miss J exchanged holiday messages and he updated Ms. Banks about his improved health. She replied, “Yesssssss Can we speak this week?” They by no means spoke. Simply weeks later, the Netflix Collection streamed to a worldwide viewers.”
The go well with claims the docuseries brought on “significant harm and damage” to Banks’ private model. The go well with contends on-line rankings for her SMIZE & DREAM ice cream enterprise have “plummeted” for the reason that docuseries aired.
Within the go well with, Banks’ attorneys declare she’s more likely to undergo financial injury together with “loss of future business opportunities, loss of business income, other compounding losses as will be shown at trial.”
Banks is requesting a jury trial to find out the quantity she ought to be awarded in damages.
Netflix has not but responded to The Hollywood Reporter‘s request for remark.
