So doesn't this, in practical effect, place a higher burden on UHG to prove malice by Potter if any of the statements she made are false or false-ish.*
I have noticed that federal courts give no fucks about placing a high burden of proof of malice at the pleading stage, before discovery is even permitted.
Texas courts, until recently, haven't had much ability to dismiss litigation at the pleading stages and, even if the rules provided for it, judges have been reluctant to do so by tradition and practice, much like the early days of summary judgment in Texas.
TCPA seems to have created sort of an uber-motion-to-dismiss in Texas state courts. Fun fact, TCPA was drafted by one of my classmates.
(most of this post is for the peanut gallery by way of explanation rather than trying to tell you what you already know, but there is a question in there).
*ETA: The value, if any, of boutique defamation firms like Clare Locke seems to be in persuasively framing the truth/falsity/opinion issues in defamation litigation to support their clients, that is making what seems like either a clear opinion or a clear fact something else entirely.