Plaintiff Lichfield sued defendants Kubler and Netflix for defamation after Kubler released a three-part Netflix documentary about her experience at a troubled-teen boarding school. The documentary featured Lichfield for his involvement with the troubled-teen industry and included allegations that he abused children and conned parents out of money.

Defendants asked the court to dismiss the case under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Lichfield’s claims were based on statements protected as opinion or substantially true as a matter of law. They also filed a special motion to strike under state anti-SLAPP statutes.

The Tenth Circuit ruled that none of the three challenged documentary segments were capable of conveying defamatory meaning. Dismissal was affirmed on all claims.

The court decided this way because context mattered far more than isolated words. Throughout the series, Kubler explicitly presented herself as an amateur filmmaker motivated by revenge, not an objective journalist. When she accused Lichfield of “abusing” children or “conning” parents, a reasonable viewer would understand these as subjective judgments about questionable business practices rather than provable facts. Defamation requires false statements of fact, and because Kubler’s accusations were too personal and malleable to be objectively verified, it prevailed.

Lichfield v. Kubler, 2026 WL 352016 (10th Cir., July 27, 2026)