The Texas Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of Ryann Tornow, affirming the trial court's decision to deny Janelle Alexis Flatt's motion to dismiss a lawsuit concerning the public disclosure of private facts. The ruling, issued on June 18, 2026, stems from a dispute over intimate photos sent by Tornow to Flatt's then-husband. This decision has implications for privacy rights and the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), which is designed to protect free speech and petition rights.
The case began when Tornow filed a lawsuit against Flatt, alleging that Flatt disclosed intimate visual material depicting her to third parties. Tornow claimed that Flatt's actions violated her privacy rights, leading to the lawsuit. Flatt responded by filing a motion to dismiss the case under the TCPA, arguing that Tornow's claims were in response to her exercise of free speech and her right to petition. However, the court found that Tornow's claims were not based on Flatt's protected rights.
The dispute centers around the events that unfolded during Flatt's divorce proceedings, where she sought Tornow's deposition. Tornow filed her lawsuit shortly after being subpoenaed, alleging that Flatt had accessed her private communications and disclosed intimate photos. Flatt's motion to dismiss was denied by operation of law when the trial court did not rule on it within the required time frame, prompting Flatt to appeal the decision.
In its ruling, the Texas Court of Appeals focused on whether Tornow's claims were based on Flatt's exercise of rights protected by the TCPA. The court concluded that Tornow's lawsuit was not in response to Flatt's actions in the divorce proceedings. The court stated, "Because we conclude that Tornow’s claims are not based on or in response to Flatt’s exercise of any right that the TCPA protects, we affirm the denial of Flatt’s motion to dismiss." This decision was made by Justice Amparo "Amy" Guerra, with the panel also including Chief Justice Adams and Justice Morgan.
The court's ruling highlights the importance of distinguishing between private disputes and matters of public concern. The TCPA is designed to protect individuals' rights to free speech and petition, but the court emphasized that not all disputes involving personal matters qualify for these protections. The court found that the allegations made by Tornow were rooted in privacy violations rather than any public interest, which ultimately led to the affirmation of the trial court's decision.
The ruling has significant implications for individuals involved in similar privacy disputes, particularly in cases where intimate material is disclosed without consent. It underscores the necessity for plaintiffs to establish that their claims are based on protected rights under the TCPA. The court's decision may serve as a precedent for future cases involving the intersection of privacy rights and free speech protections.
As for what lies ahead, Flatt may consider appealing the decision to the Texas Supreme Court, although the court filing did not indicate any plans for further legal action. The outcome of this case could influence how similar disputes are handled in the future, particularly regarding the balance between privacy rights and free speech.