Starks v. TULA Life, Inc., 8:23-cv-00004-BCB-SMB

Background

Plaintiff Katie Starks was an influencer who had an influencer agreement with TULA Life, Inc.; the contract ran through Jan 31, 2022 and allowed immediate termination for "adverse publicity" or conduct that would "disparage" or "injure the success" of TULA.
In 2021–early 2022 Starks posted criticism of Omaha school mask mandates; commenters on her posts compared masks to the Holocaust, which Starks denies she ever said or endorsed.
TULA terminated the influencer agreement on January 14, 2022 and issued public statements saying the brand has "zero tolerance for racism or hate" and that it reevaluates partnerships to align with its values.
Starks sued TULA (filed Jan 5, 2023) asserting defamation, breach of contract, tortious interference, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging reputation harm, emotional injury, and lost income.
TULA moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the district court granted the motion and dismissed all claims, concluding (among other things) that TULA's statements were nonactionable opinion and that the contract authorized termination.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Defamation	TULA's public statements labeled Starks a "racist" and implied she made hateful/anti-Semitic comparisons (e.g., masks = Holocaust) harming her reputation	Statements are non-actionable opinion; do not specifically or provably refer to Starks	Dismissed — statements are subjective opinion not provably true/false; First Amendment protects them under Nebraska law
False light	TULA publicly placed Starks in a false light by accusing her of racism	Claim duplicates defamation and is subsumed by it	Dismissed — false light subsumed within defamation claim
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)	Publicly labeling Starks a racist was intentional/reckless and caused severe emotional distress	Conduct not extreme or outrageous as required under Nebraska law	Dismissed — allegations insufficient to meet the high "extreme and outrageous" standard
Tortious interference with business relationship	TULA intentionally interfered with Starks's business relationships by ending partnerships over her political views	A party cannot tortiously interfere with its own contract	Dismissed — claim fails as a matter of law because TULA cannot interfere with its own contract
Breach of contract	TULA breached by terminating the influencer agreement before term ended; Starks invokes First Amendment	Termination was permitted by the contract's plain terms; First Amendment doesn't constrain private actors	Dismissed — contract gave TULA broad termination rights for adverse publicity; First Amendment inapplicable to private termination

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausibility)
Choice Homes, LLC v. Donner, 976 N.W.2d 187 (Neb. 2022) (opinion vs. verifiable-fact analysis for defamation)
K Corp. v. Stewart, 526 N.W.2d 429 (Neb. 1995) (context and specificity determine verifiable factual assertions)
Steinhausen v. HomeServices of Nebraska, Inc., 857 N.W.2d 816 (Neb. 2015) (false light subsumed by defamation)
JB & Assocs., Inc. v. Nebraska Cancer Coal., 932 N.W.2d 71 (Neb. 2019) (defamation elements under Nebraska law)
Moats v. Republican Party of Nebraska, 796 N.W.2d 584 (Neb. 2011) (construing alleged defamatory publications)
Roth v. Wiese, 716 N.W.2d 419 (Neb. 2006) (elements and high standard for IIED)
Heitzman v. Thompson, 705 N.W.2d 426 (Neb. 2005) (IIED: mere insults and indignities insufficient)
Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921 (First Amendment restricts government actors, not private entities)
Edwards v. City of Florissant, Missouri, 58 F.4th 372 (8th Cir. 2023) (Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard)
Christopherson v. Bushner, 33 F.4th 495 (8th Cir. 2022) (plausibility standard discussion)
Richardson v. BNSF Ry. Co., 2 F.4th 1063 (8th Cir. 2021) (pleading and dismissal principles)