Elon Musk’s 2024 deposition in Benjamin Brody’s Texas defamation lawsuit became news after Musk said, “I don’t know Ben Brody,” and responded to a question about the lawsuit by telling Brody’s lawyer, “I think you’re the one suing.” But the more important update came on March 20, 2026: the Texas Court of Appeals reversed a trial-court decision that had allowed the case to continue.
The appeals court did not rule that Brody was involved in the Portland confrontation at issue, or that Musk’s public statements were factually true. It held that the wording Musk used—particularly “looks like”—was an opinion rather than an actionable factual assertion under Texas defamation law.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Who sued Elon Musk?
Benjamin Brody, whom reporting identified as a 22-year-old Jewish man, sued Musk in Texas state court in October 2023. Brody alleged that Musk amplified a mistaken implication connecting him to a June 24, 2023 confrontation in Portland, Oregon, involving far-right groups including the Proud Boys and Rose City Nationalists.
Brody said he was not the person shown in the relevant footage. His petition brought a one-count defamation claim and stated that he sought more than $1 million in damages. The original pleading is available through the filed petition.
#1 Best Overall
The case was handled by Mark Bankston, the lawyer known for representing families in the Alex Jones defamation litigation. Brody’s theory was that Musk’s post was understood by readers as identifying him as a participant in the confrontation, rather than merely offering an unmistakable personal reaction to an image.
What did Musk post?
The dispute grew out of an image and video discussion surrounding the Portland clash. The appellate opinion focuses on Musk’s use of the phrase “looks like,” including a suggestion that the person in the image looked like a college student who wanted to join the government.
That wording became central to the legal dispute. Brody argued that readers would take the post as a factual identification linking him to the confrontation. Musk’s lawyers argued that “looks like” signaled an evaluative opinion, not a verifiable statement that Brody had participated in a violent event.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →The distinction matters because defamation generally requires an actionable false statement of fact. A statement that cannot reasonably be proven true or false, or that is understood as opinion in context, ordinarily cannot support a defamation claim. The phrase “looks like” is not automatically a legal shield; courts consider the surrounding language, disclosed facts, audience, and overall context.
In this case, however, the Texas Court of Appeals concluded that the wording communicated an opinion in the context in which it appeared on Twitter, now known as X.
Rank #2
What happened during Musk’s deposition?
The deposition took place as part of the discovery process in 2024. It drew attention because of Musk’s answers about Brody and the lawsuit.
When Bankston asked whether Musk knew Brody, Musk said, “I don’t know Ben Brody.” When asked whether he knew Brody had sued him, Musk replied, “I think you’re the one suing.” Musk also characterized the litigation as primarily an effort by Bankston to obtain money.
Contemporary coverage reported that Musk said he had only a limited understanding of the lawsuit and had not independently researched whether Brody was involved in the Portland confrontation. Those answers fueled the headline framing that Musk was denying knowledge of the person suing him in order to avoid responsibility.
That framing should be treated carefully. The record supports the exchange and Musk’s stated lack of familiarity with Brody. It does not, by itself, establish that Musk deliberately pretended not to know him, lied under oath, or was attempting to evade the case. The deposition was not a finding of perjury.
Brody’s side also accused Musk’s lawyer, Alex Spiro, of repeatedly interrupting the deposition, instructing Musk not to answer improperly, mocking questions, and attempting to derail damaging testimony. Those were allegations made by Brody’s lawyer, not established findings that determined the appeal.
Ars Technica’s 2024 account described the deposition exchanges, the lawyers’ conflict, and Musk’s dismissal arguments.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Why did Musk seek dismissal?
Musk invoked the Texas Citizens Participation Act, commonly called Texas’s anti-SLAPP law. The statute provides a mechanism for seeking early dismissal of lawsuits arising from protected speech, including speech concerning matters of public concern.
Musk’s motion argued that:
- the lawsuit arose from his exercise of free speech;
- the Portland confrontation and related public discussion involved a matter of public concern;
- Brody could not produce clear and specific evidence of an actionable false statement of fact;
- the post expressed an opinion rather than making a factual assertion; and
- Brody’s damages and theory of liability were legally insufficient.
Musk’s January 2024 arguments also warned that liability for allegedly negligent discussion of suspected criminal conduct could chill public debate. His filings questioned why Brody had not sued other X users who allegedly repeated similar claims and suggested that Brody was targeting Musk because he was a billionaire. Those were defense arguments, not neutral findings by the court.
What did the trial court decide?
The Travis County trial court denied Musk’s motion to dismiss after allowing discovery, including the deposition. Musk then filed an interlocutory appeal. That is an appeal during the case, rather than an appeal from a final jury verdict after a full trial.
There was also a procedural dispute over the timing and validity of Musk’s motion. Brody challenged the filing after it was signed by Spiro, whose Texas admission was pending. The appeals court rejected that challenge, explaining that Texas filings commonly identify attorneys whose pro hac vice admission is pending or forthcoming.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Rank #4
What did the Texas appeals court rule in 2026?
On March 20, 2026, the Texas Court of Appeals in Austin reversed the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the case and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The decision is reported as Musk v. Brody, No. 03-24-00392-CV; the full appellate opinion is available here.
The court held that Brody had not established a prima facie defamation case because he had not shown publication of an actionable false statement of fact. In the court’s view, the “looks like” language communicated an evaluative opinion in the relevant social-media context.
Because that threshold issue was enough to resolve the appeal, the court did not need to decide every other element of Brody’s defamation claim. It therefore did not need to make a final determination about all of the factual disputes surrounding the Portland confrontation, Brody’s alleged harm, Musk’s knowledge, or the parties’ competing accounts of the deposition.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Did Elon Musk win?
Yes, at the appellate stage. The appeals court reversed the trial court’s decision allowing the case to proceed and rejected Brody’s defamation theory on the record presented.
But “Musk won” does not mean a jury found that Musk was telling the truth, or that Brody was involved in the confrontation. The ruling was based on whether Musk’s wording was legally actionable. The court treated the statement as opinion, not as a provably false factual identification.
It is also more precise to say that the appeals court reversed the denial of Musk’s motion to dismiss and remanded the matter. That describes the appellate posture without claiming that every possible post-remand docket step had already been completed.
Was Musk’s deposition behavior legally decisive?
No. The deposition may have produced evidence about Musk’s knowledge, intent, and research process, and it generated substantial public interest because of the tone and content of the questioning. But the appellate court resolved the appeal on the fact-versus-opinion issue.
The decision did not turn on whether Musk appeared evasive, whether Bankston’s criticisms of the deposition were justified, or whether Spiro’s conduct amounted to proven misconduct. Nor did the court find that Musk had lied under oath.
What the ruling does—and does not—mean
It does mean:
- The Texas Court of Appeals concluded that the challenged “looks like” wording was opinion rather than an actionable factual assertion.
- Brody had not supplied the evidence needed to keep this defamation claim alive under the Texas Citizens Participation Act.
- The trial court’s refusal to dismiss Musk’s motion was reversed.
It does not mean:
- that all online misidentification is protected speech;
- that using “looks like” automatically prevents defamation liability;
- that Brody was involved in the Portland confrontation;
- that Brody did not experience harassment or other harm; or
- that a jury reached a verdict after a full trial.
The holding is specific to the wording, context, evidence, and procedural record in this case. It is not a broad ruling that every social-media post framed as an opinion is immune from legal consequences.
Why the deposition story attracted attention
The episode combined a prominent defendant, a claim of mistaken identity, alleged online harassment, and a dispute over the limits of free speech on X. Musk’s apparent unfamiliarity with Brody made the deposition especially striking, while Bankston’s role added another layer of public interest.
The case also exposed a tension in public debate about social media: a speaker may invoke free-speech protections while facing a lawsuit based on speech, and a court may resolve that case without deciding whether the underlying public controversy was accurately described. Here, the legal question became narrower than the public argument: whether Musk’s particular wording could be treated as a factual assertion capable of supporting defamation liability.
The 2024 story was therefore mainly about Musk’s deposition answers and the lawyers’ conduct. The current legal position, following the March 20, 2026 ruling, is that Musk succeeded in overturning the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the case.
Recommended Free Tools
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
