Tyra Banks filed a defamation lawsuit towards Netflix on Saturday, claiming that her portrayal within the America’s Subsequent High Mannequin docuseries, Actuality testwhich the streamer posted in February, was edited to help a false narrative.
Within the grievance filed within the U.S. District Court docket 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 what choices she would strategy in another way at this time. However, based on the go well with, solely 16 minutes of her feedback have been used within the three-part docuseries and so they have been “stripped of context and reassembled to help a false and defamatory narrative unrelated to what she truly expressed.” Her attorneys argue that the duty she assumed for a number of the High mannequinProbably the most controversial moments have been eliminated.
“Worse, the false narrative constructed by the producers – by selective modifying, deliberate omission, and surgical manipulation of steady footage – included that Ms. Banks knowingly allowed a contestant to be sexually assaulted on her present, exploited that contestant’s trauma to achieve scores, and could not even bear in mind it when requested,” the lawsuit states. “This story about Ms. Banks is an entire fabrication – one which Netflix launched to a worldwide viewers of thousands and thousands. »
Particularly, the lawsuit challenges how Banks is proven responding to the alleged sexual assault of sophomore contestant Shandi Sullivan, which she discusses on the present, claiming she handed out when she was proven having intercourse with a male mannequin and accusing the present’s manufacturing staff of portraying the incident as dishonest on her boyfriend as an alternative of what she noticed as assault.
When Banks is requested about Sullivan in Actuality testshe claims that she had no involvement within the manufacturing and modifying of the collection and that she was unaware that Sullivan’s viewers had come at her as an assault. Certainly, we ask him: “Do you bear in mind the story with Shandi? and Banks responds “um”, earlier than the display fades to black, making a “devastating and deliberate” implication that Banks couldn’t bear in mind the assault.
“Nevertheless it was unsuitable,” Banks’ attorneys say. “The total footage of Ms. Banks’ interview reveals two issues that the producers lower out and didn’t present viewers in Episode 1: Confronted with the stare, Ms. Banks nods — affirmatively, unequivocally — and instantly says, ‘I bear in mind her story.’ By eradicating the wink in the midst of the sequence and chopping Ms. Banks’ remark on the finish, the producers ensured that viewers solely noticed the lie and never the reality.
“Defendants edited the Netflix collection to make it seem that Ms. Banks knew she was being requested questions on sexual assault and was deliberately attempting to keep away from the topic,” the lawsuit states. “Ms. Banks respects Ms. Sullivan’s views and the braveness it takes for Ms. Sullivan and others to talk out.”
“Ms. Banks would have appreciated somebody concerned with the Netflix collection to inform her what Ms. Sullivan shared with them,” the go well with continues. “However they intentionally selected to not.”
Within the lawsuit, Banks additionally responds to “hurtful” allegations that she had not contacted High mannequin decide Miss J Alexander after her stroke, which he talks about within the docuseries.
“If the producers had knowledgeable Ms. Banks that a part of the narrative of the Netflix collection would come with Miss J saying that Ms. Banks by no means visited her within the hospital, Ms. Banks would have defined that she had been dwelling in Australia for 2 and a half years,” the lawsuit states.
And, based on the go well with, she allegedly confirmed textual content message strings with Miss J and her household, revealing how she tried to get in contact with him, after listening to about his stroke.
“She allegedly confirmed how exhausting she tried to make private contact with Miss J when she first heard the information of her stroke,” the lawsuit states. “And she or he allegedly confirmed the textual content message that arrived from Miss J’s member of the family who lastly responded months later and apologized for not responding to Ms. Banks’ texts and a number of calls earlier as a result of she was centered on getting higher.
“Ms. Banks allegedly defined that after this contact, she and Miss J spent three years speaking. They spoke dwell on the cellphone no less than as soon as. They exchanged voice notes, quite a few images and video messages,” the lawsuit continues. “They texted a number of occasions. As just lately as Christmas Day 2025, Ms. Banks and Miss J exchanged vacation messages and he knowledgeable Ms. Banks of his bettering well being. She responded, “Yesssssss Can we speak this week?” They by no means spoke. A number of weeks later, the Netflix collection premiered to a worldwide viewers.
The go well with claims the docuseries triggered “vital hurt and harm” to Banks’ private model. The go well with claims that on-line scores for his SMIZE & DREAM ice cream firm have “plummeted” because the docuseries aired.
Within the lawsuit, Banks’ attorneys declare she dangers financial hurt, together with “lack of future enterprise alternatives, lack of enterprise earnings, and different cumulative losses, as might be demonstrated at trial.”
Banks is requesting a jury trial to find out how a lot he must be awarded in damages.
Netflix has not but responded The Hollywood Reporterrequest for remark.