Judge dismisses Indigenous Amazon tribe’s lawsuit against The New York Times and TMZ
California court says coverage of Marubo people’s Starlink internet introduction was protected by free speech; Yahoo previously dismissed.
A California judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Marubo Tribe of the Javari Valley against The New York Times and TMZ over the tribe’s first exposure to the internet. The May filing claimed Times reporting on Starlink-provided internet access smeared the community by portraying youths as technology-addled and exposed to pornography, and it argued that TMZ and Yahoo amplified these claims. Yahoo was dismissed as a defendant earlier this month.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Tiana J. Murillo ruled that while some may view the coverage as insensitive or disparaging, the court need not decide which characterization is most apt. The decision centered on whether the reporting was protected speech and whether it caused defamation. The judge noted that TMZ’s segment contributed to the public debate about the effects of internet connectivity on remote Indigenous communities, and that the Times’ reporting, though open to debate about tone, was protected.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit included tribe leader Enoque Marubo and Brazilian journalist and sociologist Flora Dutra, who were named in the June 2024 Times story and who helped bring the tribe internet access. They argued the reporting harmed the tribe and sought at least $180 million in general and punitive damages from each defendant.
The Times’ coverage by reporter Jack Nicas described that in less than a year of Starlink access, the tribe faced the same kinds of internet-related challenges seen elsewhere, including teenagers glued to phones, gossip-filled group chats, addictive social networks, online strangers, scams, misinformation and minors watching pornography. The article noted a tribal leader’s claim that young men were sharing explicit videos in group chats. The Times later published a follow-up to address misperceptions raised by other outlets, with Nicas writing that “The Marubo people are not addicted to pornography. There was no hint of this in the forest, and there was no suggestion of it in The New York Times’s article.” The Times’ piece described substantial, albeit mixed, effects of internet connectivity on the community.
The court did not hinge its decision on tone alone. Murillo wrote that “regardless of tone, TMZ’s segment contributed to existing debate over the effects of internet connectivity on remote Indigenous communities.”
A Times spokesperson reactively welcomed the ruling. Danielle Rhoades Ha told the Associated Press on Wednesday, “We are pleased by the comprehensive and careful analysis undertaken by the court in dismissing this frivolous lawsuit. Our reporter traveled to the Amazon and provided a nuanced account of tension that arose when modern technology came to an isolated community.” Attorneys for TMZ did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Quadros, the attorney for the tribe, Marubo and Dutra, said the ruling highlights broader issues in the legal system and that the plaintiffs will decide in coming days whether to pursue steps in California courts or before international human rights bodies. “This case is bigger than one courtroom or one ruling,” Quadros wrote. “It is about accountability, fairness, and the urgent need to protect communities that have historically been silenced or marginalized.”
The decision leaves in place a broader conversation about how coverage of Indigenous communities intersects with free speech, accountability and the responsibilities of media to report on sensitive topics accurately. It also underscores ongoing tensions surrounding the ways digital connectivity reaches remote populations in the Amazon and other regions, and how such exposure can shape public perception, policy responses and the livelihoods of Indigenous communities.