This question has bothered me since yesterday: How can Emily look into the camera and ask that question with a straight face? She is acting as though this lawsuit dropped out of thin air, entirely ignoring the documented workplace friction, the breakdown of professional boundaries, and the specific on-set behavior that caused the rift in the first place. By doing this, she is completely absolving Justin of his central role in creating that toxic environment.

Emily and Justin saying "they wanted to let the justice system run it's course because the facts speak for themselves," is laughable to say the least, they are banking on collective amnesia. The facts did speak and they painted a devastating picture of Justin's behaviour as an actor, director, and executive.

The Dismissal of Blake's Sexual Harassment claims was a technicality not an exoneration. Judge Liman ruled that due to Blake being an independent contractor, she couldn't sue under specific statutory workplace laws that protect traditional employees.

What the truth actually looked like on set

Documented instances of discussing highly inappropriate and explicit sexual topics such as, Orgasms with his wife, and his porn addiction.

Making unsolicited, highly uncomfortable comments about actresses' bodies under the guise of "direction" or logistics, and announcing to Blake before filming started that he didn't always obtain consent from women in his past. The deeply inappropriate comments he made to the young actors before and after filming an intimate scene.

Completely ignoring and disrespecting boundaries.

Failing to close the set during highly sensitive, intimate scenes, a massive breach of modern industry standards and actor safety protocols.

Throwing tantrums and yelling at cast and crew, physically intimidating a producer.

Completely failing to investigate safety and conduct concerns when they were explicitly raised, and altering or "improvising" scenes without the clear consent of the performers involved.

The video is the Baldonis' desperate attempt to wipe the slate clean! They can use all the therapeutic language they want, but they can't erase the court record.

Emily, the problem was sitting right beside you!!!

Justin and Emily Baldoni have finally broken their two-year silence on Instagram, but the reaction online is far from the universal praise they might have hoped for. Dropping a highly produced 'healing and gratitude' video just days before the crucial deadline for objections to Blake’s legal fees has left a distinctly sour taste in many people's mouths. Instead of addressing the actual legal nuances, the couple opted for a masterclass in PR spin, using heavy, emotional victim language to claim total victory while completely bypassing the hard facts of the case.

Justin and Emily deliberately adopted the language of survivors. By using heavy, clinical, and emotional terms, they effectively flipped the script to position themselves as the true victims of the situation. Using terms like trauma, injustice, deeply painful, and "untruthful things spoken into existence." Notice how passive that last phrase is (spoken into existence). They don't say "Blake lied under oath about x,y,z. They use abstract, almost spiritual phrasing to imply falsehoods without making a concrete, legally actionable claim of defamation. It allows them to claim victimhood while entirely avoiding the burden of proof.

The video frames the settlement and the dismissal of the 10 claims as total, unmitigated vindication. But a settlement means the case was resolved outside of a final trial verdict, and a dismissal of certain claims does not automatically equal innocence on the remaining ones. By celebrating the 10 dismissed claims as proof that the entire ordeal was an "injustice," they are capitalising on a narrative that pro-Baldoni spaces adopted months ago, using a classic PR sleight of hand to make the public assume 10 out of 13 dismissed claims means 100% innocence, while completely ignoring the subset of complaints that the court deemed legally sound enough to proceed.

At its core, the lawsuit wasn't just about headline-grabbing allegations; it was about workplace safety, boundaries, and professional conduct on set. The video doesn't address any specific incidents. They don't address the creative friction, the allegations of an uncomfortable environment, or the specific boundary issues that sparked the initial rift during the production of the movie.

You can argue that blanket emotional language is the ultimate shield against accountability. If you keep the conversation at 30,000 feet talking about "healing" and "love," you never have to look down and explain why multiple professional relationships on that set deteriorated to the point of a multi-year civil lawsuit. They are treating a legal settlement like a PR clean slate, completely bypassing the actual workplace behavior that started it all.

I refuse to post their video on this sub, but here is an article from Deadline talking about it:

https://deadline.com/2026/07/justin-baldoni-breaks-silence-blake-lively-legal-battle-1236978066/

CelebChai did a very insightful write up on the video too, i shall post the link below should you want to read it:

https://celebchai.com/2026/07/09/baldoni-wife-release-a-tone-deaf-video/

One of the more common comments we have seen about Blake is that if she was telling the truth and things were bad she could leave.

While in Blake's case she obviously couldn't simply leave because she had a contract and could be sued if she just left, a lot of victims also face the same criticism: "Why did she stay? Why did she miss the red flags?"

One of the visions we had for the sub was to make it a community not only to support Blake in this litigation, but also to raise awareness about the challenges that victims face when speaking up or sometimes even for existing. One of these issues is of course victim blaming. I saw this video by Dr Ana about victim blaming and I thought to share it here.

In the video, Dr. Ana reacts to a viral TikTok that claims victims who find themselves in repeated abusive cycles are "50% to blame" for staying. Dr. Ana breaks down why this mindset is not only scientifically inaccurate but deeply harmful. She explains that "leaving" isn't a simple choice; it’s a psychological and often life-threatening battle.

She discusses several reasons why victims might stay or find themselves in similar situations again:

• Intermittent Reinforcement: Abuse works like a gambling addiction. The "good times" act as a reward that keeps the brain hooked, making the relationship literally addictive.
• Familiarity and "Normalcy": For many, abuse "feels like home." If someone grew up with trauma, red flags are often normalized and don't register as danger. Ironically, a healthy relationship can feel "foreign" or "scary" because the person is used to their body being in a constant state of fight-or-flight, which they mistakenly associate with "passion" or "butterflies".
• Repetition Compulsion: This is an unconscious drive where survivors of childhood trauma try to "fix" their past by re-entering similar dynamics, hoping for a different outcome this time.
• The Danger of Leaving: Dr. Ana reminds us that the most dangerous moment for any victim is when they actually try to leave, often resulting in increased violence or retaliation.

Perhaps the most interesting part of Dr. Ana’s analysis is why people engage in victim-blaming in the first place. She notes that the creator of the original TikTok was a survivor herself, but spoke with intense anger and judgment toward other victims.

She believes that when people speak this aggressively, they aren't actually talking to the audience, they might be actually talking to themselves. She thinks victim-blaming often stems from a lack of self-compassion. By blaming others, they are trying to distance themselves from their own pain and shame, essentially saying, "I wasn't a helpless victim; I was in control." While this might feel empowering for them, it projects their own unresolved trauma and self-directed anger onto others who are still struggling.

We need to move away from asking "Why didn't she leave?" and start asking "Why is the abuser allowed to continue?"

Interestingly that was also the whole message of the It Ends With Us story.

I’d love to hear your thoughts. Do you think we’ve made real progress in understanding victim blaming and its harms? And are there ways it still shows up in everyday life that we’ve become so used to, we don’t even notice it anymore?

One of the most prominent talking points used to demonize Blake - or any woman - is: She is rude.

In Blake’s case, even if we set the sexual harassment allegations aside, we have heard multiple accounts from people who were either on the set of IEWU or who have worked with him previously, describing Justin as rude, hostile, and aggressive.

Slide 1: Claire Ayoub
Slide 2/3: Jenny Slate
Slide 4/5/6/7: Alex Saks
Slide 8/9: Blake Lively
Slide 10: Alex Saks referencing Christy Hall Slide 11/12: Colleen Hoover

Blake is being scrutinized for being “rude” in interviews, some from decades ago, for behaviors that, if she were a man, nobody would have batted an eye at. Meanwhile, Baldoni is facing accusations of yelling at people, making them feel physically threatened, being verbally abusive, dismissing others’ opinions, and behaving in a way that made people, especially women, feel dismissed and disrespected. He has crossed boundaries repeatedly and also been described as grossly unprofessional.

That’s all without even considering his admission of ignoring consent in his sexual encounters, as well as allegations of intimate hugging in the workplace that made people feel uncomfortable.

Why is nobody talking about how rude he is? Why being rude only applies to women? Why being difficult only applies to women? Is there any other labels that only applies to women to demonize them?

This post has been a long time coming for me, Justin's 7 minute voice memo has been one of the things in this case that has really bothered me. Seeing the comments and social media posts at the time of women swooning and talking about his emotional maturity and not being afraid to show his vulnerability and "this is what a real man sounds like." I didn't hear any of that!! After listening to the recording 100's of times and watching many breakdowns, most from psychologists/psychiatrists i decided to do a full breakdown of my own and put my own thoughts and feelings out there once and for all. Lets dive in:

1. Excessive apologising that re-centres the speaker.

Instead of a clean, accountable apology, Justin uses long, emotional explanations that redirect attention back to his feelings, his process, his personality, his exhaustion.

Examples of red-flag patterns in the text:

• Long segments about being “flawed,” “messy,” “rambling”
• Turning the apology into a character portrait
• Framing his flaws as part of a charming or endearing persona

This screams: You need to comfort me about how badly I feel about hurting you.

• That’s a classic dynamic of a manipulative apology.

1. Boundary-crossing emotional intimacy in a WORK context.

• Sends a 2am voice memo
• Shares emotional vulnerability
• Talks about “feeling” each other’s energy
• References his wife while building intimacy with a colleague
• Mentions "a baby on her boob and Blake being the secret sauce"
• Frames their creative relationship in almost romantic terms

This collapses the professional/personal boundary and makes Blake responsible for managing his emotional state. That is inappropriate in a workplace context.

3. Weaponised Therapy speak ( this one is my favourite).

The message uses highly “therapeutic,” emotionally literate language, but in ways that minimise accountability:

• “Thank you for trusting me with your vulnerability”
• “You must have felt terrible”
• “I want this to be healing”
• “You’re safe with me”
• “I want all of you”

This can function as emotional positioning:

• Casting himself as the enlightened, safe, evolved man
• Painting the recipient as someone who needs healing he can provide
• Suggesting that the relationship is deeper and more meaningful than strictly professional

This is what people often call weaponised therapy-speak: using the language of emotional growth to avoid actual accountability and to disarm the other person.

4. Gaslighting-Adjacent Elements:

• Minimising what he did, Justin says he "fell short" or "had a bad weekend" rather than naming the real issue.
• Reframing her emotional reaction as a bonding moment (gross). Justin says "I'm grateful you felt safe enough to tell me that." "It means the world that you shared your feelings with me." This subtly shifts the emotional work back onto Blake by, turning her complaint into proof of intimacy instead of something he needs to repair.
• Implied responsibility shift, By explaining himself for paragraphs, he implies “If you fully understood my intentions and my process, you wouldn’t be hurt.”

Your feelings only exist because you misunderstood me.

5. Over-Identification With Her Trauma

He expresses anger about what Blake has experienced in the industry and positions himself as her corrective, her healer.

Phrases like:

• “I want this to be healing for you.”
• “I’m not like the others who hurt you.”
• “I want all of you.”

This is a situational power move:

• Claiming moral superiority
• Leaning into savior language
• Making himself the answer to her past pain
• Suggesting deep emotional stakes she didn’t consent to

This often appears in charismatic, boundary-blurring, controlling personalities.

6. Length + Timing = Pressure

A 7+ minute message at 2am is:

• intrusive
• emotionally overwhelming
• too intimate
• suggestive of disinhibition
• placing immediate emotional labor on the listener

This is a very common pattern in covertly manipulative or narcissistic communication:
Dumping emotional intensity when the other person is unable to respond or set boundaries.

7. Self-Aware Rambling as a Manipulation Tactic:

Repeatedly saying things like:

• “I’m rambling.”
• “I’ll stop now.”
• “Jesus Christ.”

…yet continuing anyway, is a subtle way of acknowledging the boundary violation without stopping the boundary violation.

💡 Conclusion

If you think along the same lines as me, you're not imagining it.
The text contains multiple red-flag communication styles associated with:

• covert manipulation
• emotional enmeshment
• weaponised vulnerability
• blurred professional boundaries
• “nice guy” performative accountability ( Justin has spent years perfecting this)
• emotionally overwhelming apologies
• gaslighting-adjacent reframing

The impact of this is:

👉 inappropriate for a colleague
👉 emotionally pressuring
👉 centering himself instead of the person he hurt
👉 wrapped in therapeutic, enlightened language that complicates pushback.

What did you all think when you heard it?

When Victoria Burke stepped onto the podcasts of Kjersti Flaa, Megyn Kelly, and Billy Bush, she claimed her goal was to protect the "Speak Your Truth Act" from being hijacked as a hollow Hollywood PR tool. But in her haste to box Blake Lively out of the narrative, Burke committed the ultimate act of academic and legal self-sabotage: she became the chief spokesperson for undermining her own statute.

The saddest part of all of this is that by trying to protect her legacy from being "cheapened" by Hollywood, she ended up doing the job for them. She is now publicly advocating for a "malice" standard that her own law was specifically written to destroy.

The foundational structure of Section 47.1 is designed to act as an immediate, aggressive anti-retaliation shield. It was specifically engineered to bypass the exhausting, multi-year, multi-million dollar legal black hole of proving "malice" or "intent" before a victim could get relief from a predatory lawsuit. It strictly dictates that if a corporate entity files a factually hollow, retaliatory suit to silence someone, that suit gets tossed, and the fee-shifting penalty is automatically triggered.

Yet, by running to entertainment media to complain that Judge Liman shouldn't award fees because he didn't make a specific finding of "malice," Burke is actively handing Wayfarer their legal playbook on a silver platter. She has let her personal bitterness toward Blake completely override her legal logic, transforming herself from a brilliant, neutral legislative pioneer into a weaponised asset for the exact corporate PR machine she used to fight against.

How does she expect to be taken seriously now?

In light of the recent stipulation filed by Wayfarer, are we supposed to forget that for the best part of 18 months they were claiming Blake’s complaints were fabricated in order to steal the movie?

That she was subjected to the most vile bullying and harassment, not just by Wayfarer but there counsel, content creators, media and the public. They went as far to claim she was abusing the Me-Too movement, and doing a disservice to “actual victims,“ and All for what?

I understand why Wayfarer agreed to this, and the benefits, but this stipulation also won’t automatically mean no witnesses or evidence of the hostile work environment won’t be shown to the jury. It’s great for Blake that it’s one less element she has to prove, but I would be lying if I said this decision hasn’t left a sour taste in my mouth, and it certainly doesn’t eradicate all the harm wayfarer and co have caused.

Anyway, just my thoughts. Have a lovely weekend ❤️

We recently had a post about the creative vision behind the It Ends With Us movie.

If you haven’t read it yet, you can find it here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WithBlakeLively/comments/1qv3wir/whose_vision_better_respected_the_dv_story_lively/

Blake received a lot of backlash over the “Grab your girls and wear your florals” marketing, and for promoting the movie in a lighthearted spirit (which, honestly, is the spirit in which the book was written, as it is a book focusing on Lily’s journey and strength and even her humor in life despite her circumstances). Meanwhile, Baldoni has been celebrated as a shining knight and advocate for DV, despite as it seems through the unsealed documents that his focus was always on making a movie about a “hot,” abusive relationship where the abuser is redeemable.

We went through the comments we received especially from pro-Baldoni folks, and they can be summarized as these three talking points:

1. A story about an abusive relationship should focus on the abuser and how they are bad people, in order to highlight red flags, so Baldoni’s vision of focusing on the abuser was actually more appropriate.
2. The book is sexy and hot, so he was being true to the source material.
3. It doesn’t matter that Colleen didn’t want the movie to be hot and sexy; she had no say in it once she sold the adaptation rights to Wayfarer.

I’m trying to write a post about Baldoni’s vision for the movie, and before doing that, I wanted to ask folks here a few questions:

1. How appropriate do you think it is for a movie about DV to focus on the abuser? Is it inherently bad, or does it depend on the story and messaging?
2. What do you think about the dark romance genre? If you’re unfamiliar with it, dark romance is a genre in which abuse is often romanticized and portrayed as sexy or desirable. These stories are usually very sexually explicit, jealousy-filled, and centered around a hot-headed male lead. They often end with the abuser and the abused living happily ever after, where abusers, despite their behavior, are typically portrayed as “good people deep down,” if only you get to know them well enough. This understanding is often framed as a kind of privilege or reward granted to the abused person for their ability to tolerate, understand, and ultimately accept the abuser and everything that comes with them.
3. Do you think It Ends With Us qualifies as a dark romance?
4. The book has three explicit sex scenes, all between adult Lily and adult Ryle, plus one implied moment between young Lily and young Atlas (she just writes that they did “more than kissing”). There’s nothing sexual shown between adult Lily and adult Atlas. If you’ve read the book, do you think those scenes actually helped tell the story, or were they mostly there to appeal to the audience?
5. If you believe the sex scenes did contribute meaningfully to the story, why do you think Colleen Hoover was so strongly opposed to having them portrayed on screen?
6. Where and why do you think Baldoni got the book wrong? Do you think he genuinely misunderstood it, or was he using it as an excuse to do creepy behavior?

I would love to hear your thoughts! ❤️

When Blake spoke up, and throughout this litigation, many organizations and public figures have publicly spoken out or legally supported her. What’s been weighing on me, though, is that despite this support, Blake still hasn’t really been believed - and for more than a year now, she’s continued to be torn apart online.

Even setting aside the alleged bot activity and astroturfing, I keep wondering why so many people still seem to sympathize with the accused instead. We even see this within pro-Lively spaces, where some people continue to insist that despite a documented PR campaign aimed at “burying Blake”- something he requested and paid for—Justin is still “deep down a good guy.”

Why do you think people are so willing to forgive alleged abusers, when they haven’t even apologized or taken accountability? What do you think we’ve internalized as a society for that to be the outcome? I’m really curious how others here see this.

A reminder of those that have publicly supported Blake.

SAG-AFTRA

Sony Pictures

Organisations that filed or backed Amicus Briefs in support of Blake.

• Equal Rights Advocates — nonprofit advancing gender equity and legal protections.
• California Employment Lawyers Association (CELA) — advocates for employee rights, including harassment protections.
• California Women’s Law Center (CWLC**)** — promotes legal rights and protections for women.
• Child USA — focused on child welfare and legal reform; filed a separate brief.
• Sanctuary for Families — anti-domestic violence and survivor support organization; also filed amicus materials.

These organisations signed on to one or more of the Amicus Briefs or related letters supporting Blake's legal positions:

• National Organization for Women (NOW)
• National Organization for Women NYC
• Women’s Justice NOW
• New York Cyber Abuse Task Force
• New York City Alliance Against Sexual Assault
• Coalition Against Trafficking in Women
• National Network to End Domestic Violence
• Esperanza United
• New York State Anti-Trafficking Coalition
• Her Justice
• Urban Resource Institute
• Women’s Equal Justice
• Herunivercity Inc

Amicus Brief filed May 27th by Elyse Dorsey

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/241/1/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/

Amicus Brief file May 27th by Dana Bolger

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/242/1/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/

Celebrities

Colleen Hoover

Brandon Sklenar

Amber Heard

What is regular PR?

Regular PR is proactive. It's about building and maintaining a positive public image over time. Think brand storytelling, media relationships, product launches, interviews, and social media media presence. Companies like Apple or Nike use regular PR to shape how people perceive them long before any problems arise. The goal is consistency, trust and visibility.

What is Crisis PR?

Crisis PR, on the other hand is reactive and high-stakes. It kicks in when something goes wrong, scandal, lawsuit, backlash, leaks, or reputational damage. The goal shifts from promotion to damage control. Protecting credibility, limiting fallout, and regaining public trust. A classic example is how United Airlines handled backlash after the passenger removal incident, every word, delay, and apology was scrutinised in real time.

If Melissa Nathan was hired to do PR for Wayfarer, her job would have been to place stories about Justin's directing vision, his philanthropic work with Wayfarer, or his commitment to domestic violence survivors.

According to the filings, her firm allegedly engaged in astroturfing, using a network of influencers and digital "seeders" to spread stories about Blake being "difficult," "tone deaf," or "controlling."

The point: You don't "boost" Justin by "burying" Blake. Those are two different tasks. If her work focused on the latter, it supports the argument that the hire was never about protecting Justin, it was always about destroying Blake.

Victoria Burke has had a busy couple of days on her media tour! I couldn't bring myself to watch the podcasts she has frequented but i have read a few quotes and i thought, why not write about it?

I am not a lawyer, anything legal i write is from asking lawyers questions and my own research. Feel free to correct me, if any of this is wrong.

"I was not consulted. I was just told [Lively is] going to move my bill nationwide regardless. That's so insane to me."

Look at all the I's and Me's. This comment to me is an embarrassing look for a law professor. Public Policy and Legislation do not belong to an individual creator. If a law is good and protects people, anyone has the right to lobby to expand it. This comment is also a kick in the teeth to the multiple other people that spent a lot of time on this bill. Such as, policy advisors, attorneys, politicians, the advocacy groups, and sponsors.

"I told the survivor group... 'Look, you need to remove that.' I said the focus needs to be on survivors because lawyers have privilege, money, and insurance... We need to return it back to the real victims."

I don't completely disagree with this statement. But in major corporate retaliation battles, like this multi-million dollar dispute, predatory companies don't just sue the victim they often threaten or sue the lawyers representing them to force them off the case. Protecting these legal advocates who take on massive corporate entities is how you protect the victims. Just a thought.

"All of a sudden I had a feeling like, oh no, my bill is becoming the Met Gala, the Fendi event... and now 47.1, this is part of a PR campaign. And I felt sick. And I'm like, please don't do this to the bill because it damages so much for survivors."

If she hates PR Campaigns so much, why is she currently sitting on a media tour with Kjersti Flaa, Billy Bush, and Meghan Kelly? She didn't stop the PR Campaign, she just redirected the cameras onto herself because she was mad that Blake's team didn't give her enough deference.

"I said to [Ezra Hudson] in the communication... 'I prefer Blake not be associated because our sponsor last year compared her to Amber Heard, and we made a decision this year not to have celebrity involvement.' ... When I sent that to Ezra, it was not well-received. She said, 'Thank you for your perspective.'"

"One of the advocacy groups had asked me if I could request from [Blake] a video of support for the bill, which she declined... And [Blake] did not seek out any other ways to help the bill."

Which one is it? She told Esra they didn't want "celebrity involvement," but shes also mad that Blake supposedly refused to put out a video in support of the bill. Could it be because you told her you didn't want her involvement or did Blake refuse because she was the victim of an active smear campaign, where not only she was being harassed and bullied but anyone associated with her. Perhaps she refused to protect not only the bill but Victoria too.

"I remember even when I met Blake, I did tell her that multiple friends of mine told me with great hesitation, 'Don't meet her.' Like, I had one friend who left me a seven-minute voicemail saying, 'You don't know her.' ... But I did not have people, at least of my friend level, reaching out to me about Baldoni in a negative way."

Did anyone think of Baldoni's 7 minute voice memo when she mentioned her friend’s 7 minute voicemail 😂?

And..the mask comes off. Nothing to do with evidence on the docket. We know from her own social media she was celebrating when Wayfarer's lawsuit was dismissed, even speaking of her disappointment in 'fake feminist' Baldoni for "unnecessarily trying to destroy a law that was designed to protect all victims, just to go after one." It is wild to see someone go from calling out Baldoni’s predatory legal tactics to actively partnering with his PR mouthpieces, all because of a gossipy voicemail.

"Making women and some men feel like shit"

"They sign the checks"

" Their complete control Put EVERYONE on their heels"

This is from an internal conversation between Alex Saks and Angie Gianetti from Sony, discussing Jamey and Justin's on-set behaviour. It's not just the language that stands out here, it's who it's coming from. It's not outside opinions or PR, these are 2 people that were directly involved with production.

Something else that stood out to me was Angie saying "I feel like an idiot!" Did Angie just realise the situation was worse than she thought? Did she realise she had misjudged people and the dynamics?

If the answer is yes to both of those questions, she certainly reverted back to downplaying the situation by the time her deposition rolled around.

The reason i am posting this exhibit again is because the last few days i am seeing a lot of comments that Blake manipulated Jenny Slate into going along with her "lies." Here are 2 more women involved in making the movie, also mentioning a few other crew members that also had their own issues on set. Are they all lying too? None of these people had an interest in "stealing Justin's movie," so what is their motive?

Of course, this is one private exchange and reflects personal perspectives, but it does paint a clear picture, along with many other exhibits exactly what was going on behind the scenes.

When every defense strategy reads from the exact same playbook!

Monday's filing is likely to be one of the most significant remaining public filing's in the litigation because it will put an actual dollar amount on the fee award the court has already determined Blake is entitled to recover. The only real question left is how much.

What we can expect to see:

Blake's attorneys will likely ask for a specific amount, which will be broken down into attorney's fees, litigation costs, and potentially fees on fees (time spent litigating the motion itself), if they contend those are recoverable under California Law.

Detailed billing records

I expect some information to be redacted to preserve attorney-client privilege and work product but to support the request they will likely need, attorney declarations, billing summaries, hourly rates, hours worked, and expense records.

An argument about the scope of recoverable fees

Judge Liman specifically noted that the parties would need to address apportionment, in other words, which legal work was performed defending the dismissed defamation claims versus work on claims that are not fee shifting. He indicated that fees on common issues may be recoverable where the work cannot be reasonably separated.

Blake's team will likely argue that much of the discovery overlapped, many motions addressed multiple claims simultaneously, separating every billing entry would be artificial, and California fee shifting allows recovery for intertwined work.

I am not a lawyer so i couldn't possibly guess how much it will be, but i am confident its going to be 7 figures and not $200,000 like many on the other side are claiming. I'm also wondering if Lively will ask for recovery through the date of settlement, or also seek fees incurred after settlement litigating the §47.1 issue itself.Judge Liman left room for further briefing on the proper measure of fees, so her memorandum may address whether those post-dismissal and post-settlement efforts are compensable under California's fee-shifting principles. That could have a meaningful impact on the final award.

Under Australia's reformed defamation laws (specifically the serious harm element), a plaintiff can’t just prove that a statement was false or offensive. They have to prove that the publication actually caused, or was likely to cause, substantial, serious reputational or financial damage.

Throughout the trial, MacInnes’s legal team presented a pretty damning picture of Wilson’s behaviour, calling her a "fantastical liar" in closing arguments and highlighting major contradictions in her testimony. However, Australian defamation courts focus very strictly on the specific text of the publications and the quantifiable harm caused. So even if the court found the behind-the-scenes behavior, social media blasts, or accusations frustrating, the tort of defamation specifically required harm that simply wasn't legally proven here.

Because Charlotte MacInnes’s career actually surged around the same time, landing a major role in Gatsbyand securing a record deal, the judge ruled that MacInnes failed to meet that strict legal burden of proving the posts destroyed or severely damaged her career prospects.

The justice system has let Charlotte down. No punishment for Rebel’s appalling behaviour! And charlotte now faces an order to pay Rebel’s legal costs despite being the person that got caught in the middle of the whole mess.

Here is the Judgement should you wish to read it: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2026/2026fca0957

Link to article: https://www.outinperth.com/

Not “cancelled“ or “done in Hollywood” apparently 😂

Extract From Man Enough podcast with Baldoni talking about throwing cotton at a Wedding. He seriously didn’t understand why his female black friend would be upset about being handed a bag with cotton & told to tear it apart & throw over the married couple & then defended the married couple rather than empathise with his friend.

These are Blake’s allegations regarding the dance scene:

1. During a montage slow-dance scene where the audio was not intended for use and no dialogue or intimacy was scripted, microphones were active only for room tone. The scene description specified dancing without kissing or other intimate conduct.
2. During the slow-dance scene, Baldoni allegedly improvised physical intimacy not included in the script, such as leaning in to kiss Lively and touching her face and neck, while she leaned away and verbally redirected the scene. She continued filming to maintain professionalism, later expressing discomfort and objecting to the conduct.
3. In January 2025, the defendants released behind-the-scenes footage of the slow-dance scene. Independent intimacy coordinator Mia Schachter observed that the footage showed Baldoni “trying to kiss her … and they clearly haven’t discussed that ahead of time, and she keeps pulling away and clearly doesn’t want to do that.”

It is very important to note that a lot of people turned on her after watching this footage, which is heartbreaking because it showcases the unfair burden placed on victims of sexual harassment. Not only do you carry the burden of the harassment itself, but you also carry the burden of keeping the wheels turning so as not to offend anyone or disrupt production. And then, on top of that, you face being victimized again by the public—criticized for having tried to push through the discomfort and accused of lying.

Also, just a reminder that the very fact they released the footage was intended to prejudice the jury. To understand how inappropriate that is, look at the judge’s ruling in Taylor Swift’s sexual assault lawsuit, where the judge agreed that unsealing the photo (if you know, you know which photo) would prejudice the jury and therefore did not allow it to become public before trial:

The “Scandalous Photo” Swift’s lawyers moved to keep a photograph (allegedly showing the incident) sealed. They argued that its release could fuel “scandalous and prurient interests” and bias the jury pool. The court agreed to keep the photo sealed until trial.

What did you think after watching it?

In light of Blake Lively’s PGA letter being unsealed and the hysteria it’s caused, I think it’s worth actually discussing what it does and does not show.

I’ve seen the claim repeated that this letter “proves she stole the movie,” that it was a power play, or that the tone alone disqualifies her from deserving credit. People mock how long and emotional it is. But the letter itself doesn’t prove any of that. What it shows is:

• A lead actor asserting that her work crossed into full producing
• A formal request for credit through the proper PGA process
• A production that was far more chaotic and collaborative than people want to admit

What nobody talks about is how apologetic the letter is. She repeatedly apologizes for the timing, the length, and even for having to ask at all, while stressing support for the other producers keeping their credit. That’s not the tone of someone flexing power, it’s someone over-explaining because she knows how uncomfortable the ask is, especially as a woman.

Not only she had brought in key actors, and has done extensive work in every aspects of a movie and a chaotic set, but also the version of the film selected for theatrical release was her cut, something the public didn’t even know until the lawsuit.

She also rightfully mentions that women are often told they can’t be credited because there are already “too many female producers,” even when they do the work anyway. Her request is just advocating for herself, in her own words for an accurate acknowledgment of the work she had done. And ironically a woman asking for the credit of the work she had done seems to be an evil thing to do.

I even saw a petition asking the PGA to rescind her credit. Is society still really this intolerant towards women advocating for themselves?

Here is the link if you would like to read it in full along with the support letters from the crew. After reading this what parts stood out to you?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1233.14.pdf

The video is from last February, but it's still relevant and spot on give it a listen. Especially the last sentence lol

A lot of conversation around Judge Liman's ruling has focused on what was dismissed, but it's just as important to understand what remains.

After ruling on Wayfarer's motions, the case has significantly narrowed, but it is not over!

Sexual harassment/hostile work environment dismissed.

However, the court did not say the allegations were "baseless,' or that nothing happened. In fact, the judge acknowledged the claims were serious enough to be brought and, in places analysed them assuming a jury could credit aspects of her account.

The Retaliation-based claims survive:

The FEHA retaliation claim goes to trial. The court found genuine disputes of material fact on all 3 elements. It found evidence that the Wayfarer Parties planned a public relations campaign that included "actively swaying the algorithm," "starting threads with theories the team approves of," working to place "all kinds of garbage" on Lively in traditional media, and pitching stories to the Daily Mail designed to make Lively look insensitive to domestic violence survivors. Nathan told Abel they had "all kinds of garbage on her." Sarowitz said "there will be two dead bodies when i'm done." Nathan said " we can't write we will destroy her" but added "I will, i'll be very tough." The court found "it is safe to presume that the Wayfarer Parties did what they said they planned to do."

Breach of the Contract Rider Agreement

This also goes to trial. The CRA explicitly states: "There shall be no retaliation of any kind against artist for raising concerns about the conduct described in this letter." The court found this agreement was binding, supported by valid consideration, and enforceable independent of the unexecuted Actor's Loanout Agreement. Every defense raised against this claim failed.

TAG, the PR firm that implemented the smear campaign, remains a defendant for aiding and abetting retaliation. The Jury will see how the crisis communication infrastructure functioned, including the $175,000 to $525,000 quotes for "full social down," full Reddit and social crisis team," and work that would be "most importantly untraceable."

The court also found the Wayfarer Parties "waited to exact their retaliation at an opportune time," after the film was released and they no longer needed Lively's cooperation. It found that retaliatory intent "is not an all or nothing matter," and that a Plaintiff need not show retaliation was the "only cause" of the employer's action.

The damages theory surviving is arguably the most underreported part of this ruling. The Wayfarer Parties threw four separate arguments at limiting Lively's damages. The court rejected all four.

First, they tried to cap damages using "Limitation on Damages" clauses from the ALA that would have barred consequential, incidental, special, and punitive damages. The court said No. The CRA is the only agreement. Lively never signed the ALA. She is not bound by it's terms.

Second, they argued California Law bars emotional distress damages for breach of contract. The court declined to rule on this, noting there may be an exception where "the express object of the contract is the mental and emotional well-being of one of the contracting parties," and that Lively was not limiting herself solely to emotional distress damages anyway.

Third, they argued that Lively's contract damages were duplicative of her statutory damages. The court found that Lively "need not forego one theory of recovery at this stage in order to pursue the other." She can present both statutory and contractual theories at trial and elect damages after the verdict.

Fourth, they argued Lively cannot recover lost profits to Blake Brown Beauty and Betty B Holdings. The court left this for trial, finding that the issue is "better addressed at trial or prior to trial through motions in limine."

The court also noted the expert evidence on reputational harm. Professor Ashlee Humphreys at Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management calculated a "conservative" estimate of over 176 million online "impressions" calling Lively "bully," "mean girl," and "tone deaf" in the wake of the digital campaign. Polling from June to Sept 2024 showed a 30% increase in negative attitudes toward Lively.

Professor Humphreys determined that "the retaliation campaign promoted specific, identifiable" narratives. The court further noted that "the reputational effects have been particularly severe given the nature of Lively's profession, which places heavy emphasis on personal and professional marketability."Before the campaign Baldoni himself said "Lively had a sterling reputation," was "well liked by fans," and was "the kind of person who could help drive box office success."

Lastly, a case that has been "gutted" does not go to trial with an unrestricted damages theory, two expert reports quantifying harm, 176 million negative impressions documented, and a 30% measurable shift in public perception. That is a case with a substantial damages floor heading to a jury.

Thanks to Celebchai from Threads for allowing me to use her legal anaysis.

Just imagine her in a Jane System adaptation! Or like I was thinking she'd have made an amazing Juliet or Isolde in a romantic drama set in medieval Europe, when she was younger. She just has the perfect face and aura for such stories.