NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. NOCO Company manufactures and sells battery chargers and related products. Although it sells these products itself, NOCO also authorizes resellers if they sign an agreement. This dispute began when NOCO discovered that OJ Commerce (OJC) was selling NOCO’s products on Amazon without authorization. NOCO complained to Amazon that OJC was selling NOCO’s products in violation of Amazon’s policy. And around the same time, another company also complained to Amazon about OJC. Amazon asked OJC for proof that it was complying with its policy. But OJC didn’t provide adequate documents and Amazon temporarily deactivated OJC’s account. Now, OJC blames NOCO. It argues that NOCO submitted false complaints, and it brings three claims against NOCO: defamation, tortious interference with a business relationship, and a violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

To succeed on these claims, though, OJC must establish that NOCO was the proximate cause of its injury. But it can’t do this because three intervening causes broke the causal chain, relieving NOCO of any liability. Thus, the district court rejected OJC’s claims on summary judgment, and we AFFIRM.

This case concerns the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for Head Start program staff, contractors, and volunteers imposed by an interim final rule of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”). See Vaccine and Mask Requirements To Mitigate the Spread of COVID-19 in Head Start Programs, 86 Fed. Reg. 68,052 (Nov. 30, 2021). Head Start is a federal program that funds early childhood education for low-income children and provides other resources and education to the children’s families. See 42 U.S.C. § 9831. Plaintiffs Livingston Educational Service Agency and Wayne-Westland Community Schools, both Head Start grantees in Michigan, brought suit to challenge the interim final rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Congressional Review Act, and several provisions of the United States Constitution. The district court granted a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) but later denied a preliminary injunction and dissolved the TRO. Plaintiffs appeal the denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction. At issue here is plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction pending appeal.

The plaintiffs are not entitled to an injunction pending appeal because the plaintiffs have not shown that they will likely prevail on the merits, as the district court persuasively explained in its denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. We adopt the reasoning of the district court in that respect. See Livingston Educ. Serv. Agency v. Becerra, No. 22-CV-10127, 2022 WL 660793, at *4-8 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 4, 2022).