Amazon Tribe Takes on New York Times in Defamation Lawsuit Over Internet Report

Fri Oct 10 2025 19:30:18 GMT+0300 (Eastern European Summer Time)

Amazon Tribe Takes on New York Times in Defamation Lawsuit Over Internet Report

An Amazonian tribe is claiming defamation against the New York Times for an article it says mischaracterized their community and fueled damaging stereotypes.

The Marubo tribe has filed a lawsuit against the New York Times, arguing that a report on their internet access inaccurately depicted them as unable to cope with modern technology, leading to allegations of pornography addiction among their youth. The tribe, which consists of about 2,000 members, claims the media frenzy ignited by the article has caused them significant reputational and emotional harm, seeking $180 million in damages. They have also implicated TMZ and Yahoo in the fallout from the original report, which they contend sensationalized their story and misrepresented their traditions. The NYT has stated that their article did not assert such addiction but acknowledged the challenges modern technology poses for remote communities.

The Marubo tribe, which has recently gained access to Starlink satellite internet, asserts that the New York Times story described them as struggling with common issues faced in American households, such as excessive screen time and exposure to explicit material. This portrayal, according to the tribe’s leaders, has led to nationwide ridicule and compounded the challenges of adapting to new technology. The tribe's representatives, including community leader Enoque Marubo and activist Flora Dutra, argue that the publication's claims have had damaging effects on their identity and wellbeing. The NYT maintains that its reporting was balanced, emphasizing the complexities of internet integration in a historically rich and culturally significant community while pledging to defend against the lawsuit vigorously.

Despite the NYT's insistence on the nuanced nature of its article, the Marubo tribe feels victimized by the interpretations that have emerged since its publication, leading to a broader conversation about the impact of media representation on indigenous communities.