Defamation Claims Require Objectively Verifiable Statements: Business Court Grants Summary Judgment on Integrity-Based Allegations
Judge Andrea K. Bouressa
Decided January 08, 2026
Mem. Op.
Summary Judgment
In Fiberwave v. AT&T Enterprises, 2026 Tex. Bus. 2, the Texas Business Court granted AT&T's no-evidence motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's defamation claim, finding no evidence of a false, defamatory statement or that AT&T knew or should have known of its falsity. Fiberwave alleged that AT&T's email to solution providers—stating it was ending its relationship with Fiberwave based on integrity and doing the right thing—cunningly implied Fiberwave lacked integrity.
Court Staff Summary
Granting traditional and non-evidence summary judgment against Plaintiff's defamation claim because the complained-of statements are not objectively verifiable and therefore, as a matter of law, are not defamatory.
Background and Business Context
Fiberwave, Inc. (formerly Spearhead Consulting, Inc.) sued AT&T Enterprises, LLC in the Texas Business Court alleging defamation arising from the termination of their business relationship. On April 3, 2024, AT&T sent an email to its "solution providers" stating: "Acting with integrity and doing the right thing are part of our culture. These values underpin how we operate and upholding them can require making difficult business decisions. We want to let you know that we have decided to end our business relationship with one of our Alliance Channel partners, specifically Spearhead Consulting, also known as FiberWave and related entities (collectively, 'Spearhead')." Fiberwave alleged this statement "cunningly implied that Fiberwave's business was not conducted with integrity or with doing the right thing in mind, and AT&T was thus forced to terminate its business with Fiberwave."
AT&T's No-Evidence Motion
AT&T moved for summary judgment on Fiberwave's defamation claim on no-evidence grounds, arguing that Plaintiff had proffered no evidence of a false, defamatory statement or that AT&T knew or should have known of its falsity. The Court granted Defendant's motion, concluding that "the summary judgment record reflects no evidence of either element."
Applicable Legal Standard
Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i), after adequate time for discovery, a party may move for summary judgment on no-evidence grounds. Such a motion "puts the burden on the nonmovant 'to present evidence raising an issue of material fact as to the elements specified in the motion.'" State v. Three Thousand, Seven Hundred Seventy-Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents U.S. Currency ($3,774.28), 713 S.W.3d 381, 387 (Tex. 2025) (quoting Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572, 582 (Tex. 2006)).
A trial court will grant a no-evidence motion if "there is a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact," or when "the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a mere scintilla." Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex. 1997). "Less than a scintilla of evidence exists when the evidence is 'so weak as to do no more than create a mere surmise or suspicion' of a fact." King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003).
Significance for Texas Commercial Practice
This decision demonstrates the high evidentiary burden plaintiffs face in defamation cases brought in the Texas Business Court, particularly when challenging business termination communications. The Court's grant of summary judgment on no-evidence grounds indicates that Fiberwave failed to produce sufficient evidence to create a fact question on essential elements of its defamation claim. The case also illustrates that allegations of defamation by implication—where a plaintiff claims a statement carries a false meaning beyond its literal words—face significant hurdles when the challenged statement does not contain verifiable factual assertions.