Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Recent posters seem to be losing sight of why Blake filed this suit. It was about 90% nose dive in her hair and alcohol products. She thought that the blowback from the it ends with us marketing events and bad press around it had tarnished her reputation. She needs her reputation to book roles and sell product.

The problem is this lawsuit has cost her millions in followers and has tarnished her reputation. Palling around with Taylor Swift will move hair and alcohol products. Palling around with Salma Hayek will not.

That’s the bottom line here.

If Blake is truly seeking what she perceives as justice and wants to, after March 2026, move to her Bedford home and raise her for kids in a quiet life of anonymity, perhaps that could happen. But that is not what she wants. She wants red carpets, she wants to go on panels about being a bossbabe biz owner, she wants followers and likes. No matter what happens in March 2026 she’s not likely to get that back.

Eh, I thought Lively filed this suit for the bigger purpose of exposing the sort of underground smear campaign that wrecks celebrities without anyone ever finding out about it like the one that happened to Amber Heard. If it can be proven (which might be hard because everybody who knew about it says that such campaigns are untraceable), I still think that sets up Lively in a good place going forward. I think that’s bigger than the hair and beauty products anyway but I never buy that sort of thing anyway so wtf do I know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recent posters seem to be losing sight of why Blake filed this suit. It was about 90% nose dive in her hair and alcohol products. She thought that the blowback from the it ends with us marketing events and bad press around it had tarnished her reputation. She needs her reputation to book roles and sell product.

The problem is this lawsuit has cost her millions in followers and has tarnished her reputation. Palling around with Taylor Swift will move hair and alcohol products. Palling around with Salma Hayek will not.

That’s the bottom line here.

If Blake is truly seeking what she perceives as justice and wants to, after March 2026, move to her Bedford home and raise her for kids in a quiet life of anonymity, perhaps that could happen. But that is not what she wants. She wants red carpets, she wants to go on panels about being a bossbabe biz owner, she wants followers and likes. No matter what happens in March 2026 she’s not likely to get that back.

Eh, I thought Lively filed this suit for the bigger purpose of exposing the sort of underground smear campaign that wrecks celebrities without anyone ever finding out about it like the one that happened to Amber Heard. If it can be proven (which might be hard because everybody who knew about it says that such campaigns are untraceable), I still think that sets up Lively in a good place going forward. I think that’s bigger than the hair and beauty products anyway but I never buy that sort of thing anyway so wtf do I know?

If that’s her purpose, it would truly be ironic considering the smear campaign she has put Justin through. Which by the way has largely failed. But she sure did try.

It also seems like given the campaign that she did to sabotage the Barbie movie, it would just be the ultimate irony. And if it can be shown that she truly was trying to extort Taylor through releasing her personal info which I think at this point is true or Taylor’s people would’ve come out and said no. Either it’s true, or Taylor just hates Blake so much that she’s not defending her, either way not good for Blake

I was just going by the lawsuit, which says the motivation to sue was the 90% drop in product sales. Perhaps they were just making that up, but that seems significant to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recent posters seem to be losing sight of why Blake filed this suit. It was about 90% nose dive in her hair and alcohol products. She thought that the blowback from the it ends with us marketing events and bad press around it had tarnished her reputation. She needs her reputation to book roles and sell product.

The problem is this lawsuit has cost her millions in followers and has tarnished her reputation. Palling around with Taylor Swift will move hair and alcohol products. Palling around with Salma Hayek will not.

That’s the bottom line here.

If Blake is truly seeking what she perceives as justice and wants to, after March 2026, move to her Bedford home and raise her for kids in a quiet life of anonymity, perhaps that could happen. But that is not what she wants. She wants red carpets, she wants to go on panels about being a bossbabe biz owner, she wants followers and likes. No matter what happens in March 2026 she’s not likely to get that back.

Eh, I thought Lively filed this suit for the bigger purpose of exposing the sort of underground smear campaign that wrecks celebrities without anyone ever finding out about it like the one that happened to Amber Heard. If it can be proven (which might be hard because everybody who knew about it says that such campaigns are untraceable), I still think that sets up Lively in a good place going forward. I think that’s bigger than the hair and beauty products anyway but I never buy that sort of thing anyway so wtf do I know?

If that’s her purpose, it would truly be ironic considering the smear campaign she has put Justin through. Which by the way has largely failed. But she sure did try.

It also seems like given the campaign that she did to sabotage the Barbie movie, it would just be the ultimate irony. And if it can be shown that she truly was trying to extort Taylor through releasing her personal info which I think at this point is true or Taylor’s people would’ve come out and said no. Either it’s true, or Taylor just hates Blake so much that she’s not defending her, either way not good for Blake

I was just going by the lawsuit, which says the motivation to sue was the 90% drop in product sales. Perhaps they were just making that up, but that seems significant to me.

Lawsuits don't say "My motivation in filing this lawsuit is X." None of us know exactly what motivated Blake to sue in the end. Only she knows that.

[Anonymous]

Freedman has reportedly withdrawn the subpoena against Taylor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recent posters seem to be losing sight of why Blake filed this suit. It was about 90% nose dive in her hair and alcohol products. She thought that the blowback from the it ends with us marketing events and bad press around it had tarnished her reputation. She needs her reputation to book roles and sell product.

The problem is this lawsuit has cost her millions in followers and has tarnished her reputation. Palling around with Taylor Swift will move hair and alcohol products. Palling around with Salma Hayek will not.

That’s the bottom line here.

If Blake is truly seeking what she perceives as justice and wants to, after March 2026, move to her Bedford home and raise her for kids in a quiet life of anonymity, perhaps that could happen. But that is not what she wants. She wants red carpets, she wants to go on panels about being a bossbabe biz owner, she wants followers and likes. No matter what happens in March 2026 she’s not likely to get that back.

Eh, I thought Lively filed this suit for the bigger purpose of exposing the sort of underground smear campaign that wrecks celebrities without anyone ever finding out about it like the one that happened to Amber Heard. If it can be proven (which might be hard because everybody who knew about it says that such campaigns are untraceable), I still think that sets up Lively in a good place going forward. I think that’s bigger than the hair and beauty products anyway but I never buy that sort of thing anyway so wtf do I know?

If that’s her purpose, it would truly be ironic considering the smear campaign she has put Justin through. Which by the way has largely failed. But she sure did try.

It also seems like given the campaign that she did to sabotage the Barbie movie, it would just be the ultimate irony. And if it can be shown that she truly was trying to extort Taylor through releasing her personal info which I think at this point is true or Taylor’s people would’ve come out and said no. Either it’s true, or Taylor just hates Blake so much that she’s not defending her, either way not good for Blake

I was just going by the lawsuit, which says the motivation to sue was the 90% drop in product sales. Perhaps they were just making that up, but that seems significant to me.

Lawsuits don't say "My motivation in filing this lawsuit is X." None of us know exactly what motivated Blake to sue in the end. Only she knows that.

I mean, she blatantly stated the 90% loss of profits. But you can choose to believe it’s to give a voice to women everywhere lol because that’s so Blake ammirite

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recent posters seem to be losing sight of why Blake filed this suit. It was about 90% nose dive in her hair and alcohol products. She thought that the blowback from the it ends with us marketing events and bad press around it had tarnished her reputation. She needs her reputation to book roles and sell product.

The problem is this lawsuit has cost her millions in followers and has tarnished her reputation. Palling around with Taylor Swift will move hair and alcohol products. Palling around with Salma Hayek will not.

That’s the bottom line here.

If Blake is truly seeking what she perceives as justice and wants to, after March 2026, move to her Bedford home and raise her for kids in a quiet life of anonymity, perhaps that could happen. But that is not what she wants. She wants red carpets, she wants to go on panels about being a bossbabe biz owner, she wants followers and likes. No matter what happens in March 2026 she’s not likely to get that back.

Eh, I thought Lively filed this suit for the bigger purpose of exposing the sort of underground smear campaign that wrecks celebrities without anyone ever finding out about it like the one that happened to Amber Heard. If it can be proven (which might be hard because everybody who knew about it says that such campaigns are untraceable), I still think that sets up Lively in a good place going forward. I think that’s bigger than the hair and beauty products anyway but I never buy that sort of thing anyway so wtf do I know?

If that’s her purpose, it would truly be ironic considering the smear campaign she has put Justin through. Which by the way has largely failed. But she sure did try.

It also seems like given the campaign that she did to sabotage the Barbie movie, it would just be the ultimate irony. And if it can be shown that she truly was trying to extort Taylor through releasing her personal info which I think at this point is true or Taylor’s people would’ve come out and said no. Either it’s true, or Taylor just hates Blake so much that she’s not defending her, either way not good for Blake

I was just going by the lawsuit, which says the motivation to sue was the 90% drop in product sales. Perhaps they were just making that up, but that seems significant to me.

Lawsuits don't say "My motivation in filing this lawsuit is X." None of us know exactly what motivated Blake to sue in the end. Only she knows that.

I mean, she blatantly stated the 90% loss of profits. But you can choose to believe it’s to give a voice to women everywhere lol because that’s so Blake ammirite

You are supposed to state the basis for damages. It's not "blatant," that's just how lawsuits work.

[Anonymous]

Deadline is reporting that Freedman got what he needed and agreed to drop the subpoena for Taylor and her counsel

https://deadline.com/2025/05/taylor-swift-subpoena-dropped-by-justin-baldoni-1236408443/

In an unexpected move, the It Ends With Us star and director has withdrawn the paperwork seeking information from Swift about what she knew about what went down between her pal Lively and Wayfarer Studios co-founder Baldoni on the domestic violence themed film. Part of the reason the summons was dropped was because details that the Bryan Freedman represented Baldoni and crew sought were provided, I hear.

[Anonymous]

If they provided the information sought, how is that "dropped"? That would mean Swift responded, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they provided the information sought, how is that "dropped"? That would mean Swift responded, no?

The motion was dropped. That means yes Taylor gave them something that satisfied them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recent posters seem to be losing sight of why Blake filed this suit. It was about 90% nose dive in her hair and alcohol products. She thought that the blowback from the it ends with us marketing events and bad press around it had tarnished her reputation. She needs her reputation to book roles and sell product.

The problem is this lawsuit has cost her millions in followers and has tarnished her reputation. Palling around with Taylor Swift will move hair and alcohol products. Palling around with Salma Hayek will not.

That’s the bottom line here.

If Blake is truly seeking what she perceives as justice and wants to, after March 2026, move to her Bedford home and raise her for kids in a quiet life of anonymity, perhaps that could happen. But that is not what she wants. She wants red carpets, she wants to go on panels about being a bossbabe biz owner, she wants followers and likes. No matter what happens in March 2026 she’s not likely to get that back.

Eh, I thought Lively filed this suit for the bigger purpose of exposing the sort of underground smear campaign that wrecks celebrities without anyone ever finding out about it like the one that happened to Amber Heard. If it can be proven (which might be hard because everybody who knew about it says that such campaigns are untraceable), I still think that sets up Lively in a good place going forward. I think that’s bigger than the hair and beauty products anyway but I never buy that sort of thing anyway so wtf do I know?

If that’s her purpose, it would truly be ironic considering the smear campaign she has put Justin through. Which by the way has largely failed. But she sure did try.

It also seems like given the campaign that she did to sabotage the Barbie movie, it would just be the ultimate irony. And if it can be shown that she truly was trying to extort Taylor through releasing her personal info which I think at this point is true or Taylor’s people would’ve come out and said no. Either it’s true, or Taylor just hates Blake so much that she’s not defending her, either way not good for Blake

I was just going by the lawsuit, which says the motivation to sue was the 90% drop in product sales. Perhaps they were just making that up, but that seems significant to me.

I mean, it doesn’t seem like Lively ran any sort of smear campaign against Baldoni with bots and paid Reddit comments afaict. If by “smear campaign” you mean publicizing the actual texts that Baldoni and his PR reps sent around talking about the smear they wanted to run on Lively, using Baldoni and his PR reps’ own real words — I guess, but I wouldn’t call that a smear. Their reasons for wanting to smear her, and the extent to which the did smear her, are still up for discussion, but they certainly did create different plans to smear her, discussed them, and moved forward with something.

In still waiting to see what happens with Venable. Maybe it will be terrible for Lively, or maybe it will just have been a Freedman distraction from the sanctions filings. Either way, if Lively can make it through this pain cave to trial, and prove Baldoni’s smear, she will have beaten terrible odds and will be applauded. I’m not sure the guy who markets himself as a male feminist but also intentionally conducted an under the radar campaign to ruin the woman who accused him of sexual harassment, if that’s the result at trial, would get much work except from men’s rights groups going forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Freedman has reportedly withdrawn the subpoena against Taylor.

Explains the front running by the Blake bots regurgitating old content this morning.

[Anonymous]

Once again, Blake stans are deluded about the smear campaign. People hated her and the hate arose organically. The end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once again, Blake stans are deluded about the smear campaign. People hated her and the hate arose organically. The end.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recent posters seem to be losing sight of why Blake filed this suit. It was about 90% nose dive in her hair and alcohol products. She thought that the blowback from the it ends with us marketing events and bad press around it had tarnished her reputation. She needs her reputation to book roles and sell product.

The problem is this lawsuit has cost her millions in followers and has tarnished her reputation. Palling around with Taylor Swift will move hair and alcohol products. Palling around with Salma Hayek will not.

That’s the bottom line here.

If Blake is truly seeking what she perceives as justice and wants to, after March 2026, move to her Bedford home and raise her for kids in a quiet life of anonymity, perhaps that could happen. But that is not what she wants. She wants red carpets, she wants to go on panels about being a bossbabe biz owner, she wants followers and likes. No matter what happens in March 2026 she’s not likely to get that back.

Eh, I thought Lively filed this suit for the bigger purpose of exposing the sort of underground smear campaign that wrecks celebrities without anyone ever finding out about it like the one that happened to Amber Heard. If it can be proven (which might be hard because everybody who knew about it says that such campaigns are untraceable), I still think that sets up Lively in a good place going forward. I think that’s bigger than the hair and beauty products anyway but I never buy that sort of thing anyway so wtf do I know?

When has this women expressed interest and curiosity about anything happening outside of her shallow little world?

[Anonymous]

I mean, it doesn’t seem like Lively ran any sort of smear campaign against Baldoni with bots and paid Reddit comments afaict. If by “smear campaign” you mean publicizing the actual texts that Baldoni and his PR reps sent around talking about the smear they wanted to run on Lively, using Baldoni and his PR reps’ own real words — I guess, but I wouldn’t call that a smear. Their reasons for wanting to smear her, and the extent to which the did smear her, are still up for discussion, but they certainly did create different plans to smear her, discussed them, and moved forward with something.

I think they mean the sexual harassment case is a smear, twisting things out of context to develop a case. And some people also believe that she turned the cast against him resulting in him being frozen out of the premiere, not walking the red carpet and viewing from a different theater.