Are there legal actions (defamation suits or demands for retraction) related to Owens’ accusation against Erika Kirk?

1. Rumors versus records: what the fact‑checks say

Multiple fact‑check and mainstream outlets investigated a circulating claim that Erika Kirk had filed a $40 million defamation suit against ABC and The View and concluded there is no evidence the suit was filed — tracing the story to satire or parody pages — making the $40 million report false as presented online ^{[4] [2] [5]}.

2. Speculation after Owens’ accusations: heavy social chatter, light on legal filings

After Candace Owens floated theories linking Egyptian military flights and other suspicious details to Erika Kirk, social media amplified calls that “Erika Kirk should sue” and raised questions about whether legal action would follow; reporting records those calls and the online reaction but do not document any announced lawsuit or formal legal demand from Erika Kirk against Owens as of the cited stories ^{[1] [6] [3]}.

3. Sources identify a pattern of viral, satirical origin stories

News outlets and fact‑checkers traced some of the most prominent lawsuit claims to pages known for satire — for example, America’s Last Line of Defense — and warned that emotion around Charlie Kirk’s death made parody stories especially believable, undercutting their reliability as evidence of real legal action ^{[4] [2] [5]}.

4. Reporting on Owens’ specific allegations — not on lawsuits filed

Several outlets detail Owens’ public allegations (flight‑tracking overlaps, leaked texts and other conspiracy assertions) and the internal strain those claims caused at Turning Point USA; these pieces focus on the controversy and organizational fallout rather than any verified lawsuit by Erika Kirk against Owens ^{[7] [8] [9]}.

5. No official confirmation from Erika Kirk or TPUSA in these reports

News coverage explicitly notes an absence of official statements or public moves by Erika Kirk or Turning Point USA to sue Owens — several stories say there has been “no official word” about legal action and that speculation about legal steps remains online rumor, not documented legal filings ^{[3] [1]}.

6. Alternative explanations and competing narratives

Some coverage emphasizes that Owens and her defenders frame her work as investigative or raising legitimate questions, while critics say she is stitching together unrelated data points and making unverified accusations; that dispute fuels citizen calls for legal remedies but does not substitute for court records or confirmed legal notices cited in the reporting ^{[7] [9] [6]}.

7. What’s missing from the reporting — and why that matters

Available sources do not show court filings, cease‑and‑desist letters, or press releases from Erika Kirk’s legal team demanding retraction, so there is no documented legal escalation in response to Owens’ claims in these articles; absence of reporting on a court filing is not affirmative proof no action exists but is the current public record in the cited sources ^{[4] [2] [3]}.

8. Practical takeaways for readers tracking this story

Treat social posts claiming large defamation suits with caution: fact‑checkers found viral claims that looked plausible were satirical in origin ^{[4] [5]}. For confirmed legal actions, look for primary documents (court dockets, lawyer statements) or official statements from Erika Kirk or her counsel; those are not present in the articles provided ^{[2] [3]}.

Limitations: the above summarizes only the items in the provided search results; available sources do not mention any filed defamation lawsuit or formal demand for retraction by Erika Kirk against Candace Owens as of these reports ^{[4] [2] [3]}.