$1.5 Million Sponsorship, Connected Law Firm of Tribune/ProPublica Cloud Texas Supreme Court Case

The backbone of the US economy is small business and we want to keep it that way.  

But more small businesses are being eaten up by big businesses, who manipulate the media and their political connections to destroy their competition at a time when market conditions are ferocious.  

The reason this lawsuit matters to every Texan is because it’s about a growing economic tactic, nationally and locally, in which big fish in business will disparage and damage the reputation of small fish in business through media companies hungry for sponsorship dollars and politicians hungry for campaign contributions.

Lawyers are warning that Texas business owners’ rights may be taken away if the Texas Supreme Court rules that the media and their sponsors are more powerful than the laws to protect you against business disparagement. 

MRG Medical won the right to continue a business disparagement case against the Texas Tribune and ProPublica in a Texas District Court. Judge Jill Albracht of the 353rd District Court in Travis County ruled that MRG provided sufficient evidence for each element of its business disparagement case. 

According to court documents, The Texas Tribune and ProPublica admitted to “willful and intentional interference” against MRG Medical in a Travis County District Court to shield their wealthy donors from testifying in the case—co-conspirators Bruce Bugg, Graham Weston, and Tullos Wells. Court documents claim the gist of the article is “false and misleading” and $1.5 million has been donated to the Texas Tribune by the Tobin Foundation, of which Bruce Bugg is the chairman and trustee.

“In our case we have the facts and the law on our side, and, whenever we are allowed the opportunity to have oral arguments and full legal briefings, we are confident the Texas Supreme Court will rule in the company’s favor. We are asking the Texas Supreme Court to give Texas businesses like MRG the right to be heard.  We ask them to uphold the rule of law and affirm the district court’s ruling to allow this case to proceed, or at minimum grant the petition of review and allow all the legal arguments and evidence to be presented to the Court for consideration,” said an MRG spokesperson.

MRG alleges that the co-conspirators hatched a plot to enter the COVID testing market and overtake competitors through politics rather than innovation. The plan came to fruition with the founding of Community Labs on September 16, 2020. 9 days later, the Texas Tribune and ProPublica published an article that MRG says “create(d) a substantially false and defamatory impression by omitting material facts or juxtaposing facts in a misleading way.”

On September 25, 2020, the article was published by the Texas Tribune and ProPublica. Two weeks later, on October 6, 2020, Bexar County Commissioners Court gave two million dollars of its testing funds to three major donors of the Tribune and ProPublica Community Labs founders—Bruce Bugg, Graham Weston, and Tullos Wells.

Community Labs would go on to receive additional public funds through Bexar County: approximately $305,000.00 on October 20, 2020, and $1,000,000.00 on December 15, 2020. On April 6, 2021, Bexar County approved a new $4,000,000.00 budget, amending the agreement between Community Lab for Covid-19 testing services.

Bexar County Commissioner Tommy Calvert originally allocated, with the Court’s approval, $2 million for COVID testing at all urgent care centers offering rapid tests for those who could not afford a $50-125 rapid antigen test.  

According to MRG’s lawyers, the article falsely implies “financial impropriety” between MRG and its former unpaid advisory board member Commissioner Calvert.  

Commissioner Calvert served on an unpaid advisory board of MRG Medical but the Tribune and ProPublica implied that Calvert was obliged to disclose this unpaid role from two years prior.  

Their article juxtaposed a sentence about conflicts of interest right after writing that Calvert had dinners and spent time at the Kentucky Derby, even though Commissioner Calvert provided bank records to the media to prove he paid for his own expenses.

Calvert provided his bank records to the Tribune/ProPublica for them to publish showing he paid for his airfare to the Kentucky Derby with MRG’s CEO, that Calvert paid his own hotel, and even his food even telling them to show that he went twice to Popeyes.

MRG’s lawyers stated that the article never defined for readers what the state conflict of interest law said but used disparagement by implication to give the gist that there was financial impropriety. 


Judge Jill Albracht of the 353rd District Court, who heard the case, pointed out that, “People are free to go on trips with contractors” and questioned why the reporters even “brought up the Kentucky trip” arguing that “it wasn’t illegal for him to go to the Kentucky Derby if…he paid his entire trip himself.” 

MRG’s lawyers got the Texas Tribune and ProPublica to admit that they never found any evidence of illicit/illegal relationships that would violate any conflict-of-interest laws.” 

MRG’s core contention remains: the article created a “substantially false and defamatory impression by omitting material facts” and “juxtaposing facts in a misleading way.” 

MRG provided multiple cancelled contracts and affidavits proving that prospective clients would not do business with MRG because of the article.

The Third Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of the Tribune/ProPublica’s Texas Citizen’s Participation Act’s Motion to Dismiss “because MRG Medical never sold COVID tests”. 

In substance, the third court’s opinion faulted MRG for not actually manufacturing and directly selling covid tests to consumers. MRG’s lawyers say the fact that the company asserting a business disparagement claim does not manufacture the specific products that are incorporated into the services it provides to the public should not be dispositive of any additional analysis of the disparagement elements. 

MRG’s lawyers further state that the court of appeals opinion did not even contain a discussion regarding the implication and gist claims that were relied on by the trial court in its ruling.

The Third Court’s opinion introduction contained factual inaccuracies that are contrary to the evidence in the record. 

Specifically, the Appeals Court’s opinion claimed that “No Local Governments ultimately purchased tests from Reliant” and that “negotiations for Reliant to purchase MRG medical also ended without a deal.” 

But the record contains evidence of actual agreements MRG entered with Reliant, and that Reliant did provide services to local government entities, to which the Third Court opinion states the contrary. 

If the Texas Supreme Court does not grant MRG’s petition of review, the Court of Appeal’s opinion which relied on false facts that were contrary to record on appeals will be allowed to stand, set a bad precedent and will send a message to Texas businesses that the law will protect the media and their well-connected sponsors, but not Texas business owners.