Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, it sounds like Jed Wallace is one of the defendant(s) who's going to be added to Lively's lawsuit:

https://deadline.com/2025/02/blake-lively-trial-strategy-justin-baldoni-1236278393/

So BL allegation is that Wallace/his company was hired by JB and others she is suing to do the social media takedown? Yes I read article linked, but honestly got confused by how written since don’t know all the names to know who is on which side.

Yes. Wallace is known for his unmoral pr tactics.

It's really unclear to me what's immoral and particularly, illegal here. It seems sort of sleezy and dirty to use bots but...is that sanctionable? At the end of the day, even that effort would not have been successful if they didn't have the underlying footage of Lively being absolutely heinous on multiple occasions. To me, whatever they did to boost those views is sort of secondary to the fact that the worst offense is those tapes were available in the first place.

Not to detract from your underlying point, but I think Jed's team may have planted stories, not used bots. TAG denies the use of bots, but I don't see anything Justin's complaint denying the planting of negative stories by real humans. denial of bots, pg. 148: https://thelawsuitinfo.com/downloads/amended-complaint.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, it sounds like Jed Wallace is one of the defendant(s) who's going to be added to Lively's lawsuit:

https://deadline.com/2025/02/blake-lively-trial-strategy-justin-baldoni-1236278393/

So BL allegation is that Wallace/his company was hired by JB and others she is suing to do the social media takedown? Yes I read article linked, but honestly got confused by how written since don’t know all the names to know who is on which side.

Yes. Wallace is known for his unmoral pr tactics.

It's really unclear to me what's immoral and particularly, illegal here. It seems sort of sleezy and dirty to use bots but...is that sanctionable? At the end of the day, even that effort would not have been successful if they didn't have the underlying footage of Lively being absolutely heinous on multiple occasions. To me, whatever they did to boost those views is sort of secondary to the fact that the worst offense is those tapes were available in the first place.

Not to detract from your underlying point, but I think Jed's team may have planted stories, not used bots. TAG denies the use of bots, but I don't see anything Justin's complaint denying the planting of negative stories by real humans. denial of bots, pg. 148: https://thelawsuitinfo.com/downloads/amended-complaint.pdf

Planting stories, unless false, seems even less actionable to me! Maybe it's because I think celebrity PR is sort of inherently bereft of dignity, but something like re-introducing old (but verified) interviews seems...fine? Sure, it's a powerplay. But again, you couldn't do this without the underlying footage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, it sounds like Jed Wallace is one of the defendant(s) who's going to be added to Lively's lawsuit:

https://deadline.com/2025/02/blake-lively-trial-strategy-justin-baldoni-1236278393/

So BL allegation is that Wallace/his company was hired by JB and others she is suing to do the social media takedown? Yes I read article linked, but honestly got confused by how written since don’t know all the names to know who is on which side.

Yes. Wallace is known for his unmoral pr tactics.

It's really unclear to me what's immoral and particularly, illegal here. It seems sort of sleezy and dirty to use bots but...is that sanctionable? At the end of the day, even that effort would not have been successful if they didn't have the underlying footage of Lively being absolutely heinous on multiple occasions. To me, whatever they did to boost those views is sort of secondary to the fact that the worst offense is those tapes were available in the first place.

Not to detract from your underlying point, but I think Jed's team may have planted stories, not used bots. TAG denies the use of bots, but I don't see anything Justin's complaint denying the planting of negative stories by real humans. denial of bots, pg. 148: https://thelawsuitinfo.com/downloads/amended-complaint.pdf

Planting stories, unless false, seems even less actionable to me! Maybe it's because I think celebrity PR is sort of inherently bereft of dignity, but something like re-introducing old (but verified) interviews seems...fine? Sure, it's a powerplay. But again, you couldn't do this without the underlying footage.

I’m with u, seems less dirty in a way, but we don’t know what Jed posted. He very well could’ve posted some false nasty stuff about them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Her language is very much word salad. WTH is she talking about? It sounds like she is describing a full bodied wine or something. That text from her is gross.

I’m team Baldoni but in that text message she is trying to convey how she will act the scene, not flirt with him. I do find it weird how she proposes to basically … play herself instead of the character but 🤷 It also gives some insight into the creative differences since I am not sure that the interaction she imagines makes any sense at all with an abusive man. If anything that kind of “ball busting” in jest would result in abusive man getting very angry - in fact it would sort of be a classic red flag where he gets mad at being insulted and “teaches” her that by getting angry. She seems to be seeing the movie as a rom com which is very weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I want to talk about the retaliation claim. I still think Blake's PR mistakes were largely self-inflicted. But reading Blake's complaint, there are some texts confirming Jed Wallace did do work, and if you read Justin's lawsuit, the only thing I get out of that is that they didn't use bots -- which still doesn't mean they couldn't have planted stories.

For example, in a text from Jennifer Abel, according to Blake Lively’s complaint, she says this: “We've also started to see a shift on social, due largely to Jed and his team's
efforts to shift the narrative towards shining a spotlight on Blake and Ryan.”

What do lawyers have to say to that? Is that problematic for you, or does it still fail to pass muster given that it seems Justin was doing this to protect his reputation and it wasn't in retaliation to the SH claims?

I used to do sexual harassment/retaliation cases and you are totally right that this appears to be (1) retaliatory and (2) damaging. It has always been her strongest argument. But there’s a lot more she still has to prove - especially that the retaliation was due to her harassment complaint, which is not actually totally clear. She would also have to prove (for damages, not to prove the retaliation happened) that the damages to her brand sales and reputation are due to the retaliation and not other factors.

Too bad Justin didn’t consult with a lawyer who would have told him this was a dumb*ss move …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, it sounds like Jed Wallace is one of the defendant(s) who's going to be added to Lively's lawsuit:

https://deadline.com/2025/02/blake-lively-trial-strategy-justin-baldoni-1236278393/

So BL allegation is that Wallace/his company was hired by JB and others she is suing to do the social media takedown? Yes I read article linked, but honestly got confused by how written since don’t know all the names to know who is on which side.

Yes. Wallace is known for his unmoral pr tactics.

It's really unclear to me what's immoral and particularly, illegal here. It seems sort of sleezy and dirty to use bots but...is that sanctionable? At the end of the day, even that effort would not have been successful if they didn't have the underlying footage of Lively being absolutely heinous on multiple occasions. To me, whatever they did to boost those views is sort of secondary to the fact that the worst offense is those tapes were available in the first place.

Not to detract from your underlying point, but I think Jed's team may have planted stories, not used bots. TAG denies the use of bots, but I don't see anything Justin's complaint denying the planting of negative stories by real humans. denial of bots, pg. 148: https://thelawsuitinfo.com/downloads/amended-complaint.pdf

This is the immoral part i was talking about. A lot of entertainment PR agents came out and said using of bots is looked down upon ans nit something normally done. Thats what Jed's known for in the PR industry. You can find plenty of reddit posts about it, lots not dealing with this Blake situation too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her language is very much word salad. WTH is she talking about? It sounds like she is describing a full bodied wine or something. That text from her is gross.

I’m team Baldoni but in that text message she is trying to convey how she will act the scene, not flirt with him. I do find it weird how she proposes to basically … play herself instead of the character but 🤷 It also gives some insight into the creative differences since I am not sure that the interaction she imagines makes any sense at all with an abusive man. If anything that kind of “ball busting” in jest would result in abusive man getting very angry - in fact it would sort of be a classic red flag where he gets mad at being insulted and “teaches” her that by getting angry. She seems to be seeing the movie as a rom com which is very weird.

Isn’t this essentially what’s happening during the dancing video, too? She’s proposing that characters talk because that’s what she and RR do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her language is very much word salad. WTH is she talking about? It sounds like she is describing a full bodied wine or something. That text from her is gross.

I’m team Baldoni but in that text message she is trying to convey how she will act the scene, not flirt with him. I do find it weird how she proposes to basically … play herself instead of the character but 🤷 It also gives some insight into the creative differences since I am not sure that the interaction she imagines makes any sense at all with an abusive man. If anything that kind of “ball busting” in jest would result in abusive man getting very angry - in fact it would sort of be a classic red flag where he gets mad at being insulted and “teaches” her that by getting angry. She seems to be seeing the movie as a rom com which is very weird.

Isn’t this essentially what’s happening during the dancing video, too? She’s proposing that characters talk because that’s what she and RR do.

lol same. Narrow range there!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her language is very much word salad. WTH is she talking about? It sounds like she is describing a full bodied wine or something. That text from her is gross.

I’m team Baldoni but in that text message she is trying to convey how she will act the scene, not flirt with him. I do find it weird how she proposes to basically … play herself instead of the character but 🤷 It also gives some insight into the creative differences since I am not sure that the interaction she imagines makes any sense at all with an abusive man. If anything that kind of “ball busting” in jest would result in abusive man getting very angry - in fact it would sort of be a classic red flag where he gets mad at being insulted and “teaches” her that by getting angry. She seems to be seeing the movie as a rom com which is very weird.

Isn’t this essentially what’s happening during the dancing video, too? She’s proposing that characters talk because that’s what she and RR do.

lol same. Narrow range there!

Although to be fair, Baldoni and Heath also talk about their lives as a reference. still it seems weird to me all around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her language is very much word salad. WTH is she talking about? It sounds like she is describing a full bodied wine or something. That text from her is gross.

I would NEVER send a coworker a text about my love language and the “without teeth” comment is just gross.

It seems like she put herself out there to Justin and he wasn’t feeling her and kept it professional.

Yes, based on this text, she was SH Justin. She didn’t realize they were supposed to be acting. He was playing a role and so was she supposedly. She’s delusional. It’s sad but maybe she had some postpartum psychosis going on.

.

Super crazy text but I don’t think she’s sexting him. Have you guys ever met actors before? They are super dramatic and dissect every single part of their characters. They are all about emotions and back story and motives for their characters. In the above text, I THINK she’s trying to say how she thinks the scene on the rooftop should go down (based on her character’s perspective) in the movie and she’s saying let’s do the scene this way (play up the flirting but make her character less of a wet noodle and give her more autonomy). But hard to tell with the word salad. It’s like she’s trying hard to show him- this is how I think I should play the role NOT the way you are directing me too. Power struggle 💯

[Anonymous]

I think it’s fine for people to have unguarded or playful conversations. But it’s problematic if you have one standard for yourself but then hold others to a different standard. If you are someone who wants a highly professionally, rather buttoned up working environment, the best way to communicate that is to behave with that level of decorum at all times yourself. I think the text above is at best confusing. Some men might have read that as a green light to make some sort of move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s fine for people to have unguarded or playful conversations. But it’s problematic if you have one standard for yourself but then hold others to a different standard. If you are someone who wants a highly professionally, rather buttoned up working environment, the best way to communicate that is to behave with that level of decorum at all times yourself. I think the text above is at best confusing. Some men might have read that as a green light to make some sort of move.

Also, to tack on, I agree it’s not sexting. It’s just like the dance where you can read it kinda sleazy if you’re trying to “gotcha” the other person and mischaracterize the motive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to talk about the retaliation claim. I still think Blake's PR mistakes were largely self-inflicted. But reading Blake's complaint, there are some texts confirming Jed Wallace did do work, and if you read Justin's lawsuit, the only thing I get out of that is that they didn't use bots -- which still doesn't mean they couldn't have planted stories.

For example, in a text from Jennifer Abel, according to Blake Lively’s complaint, she says this: “We've also started to see a shift on social, due largely to Jed and his team's
efforts to shift the narrative towards shining a spotlight on Blake and Ryan.”

What do lawyers have to say to that? Is that problematic for you, or does it still fail to pass muster given that it seems Justin was doing this to protect his reputation and it wasn't in retaliation to the SH claims?

I used to do sexual harassment/retaliation cases and you are totally right that this appears to be (1) retaliatory and (2) damaging. It has always been her strongest argument. But there’s a lot more she still has to prove - especially that the retaliation was due to her harassment complaint, which is not actually totally clear. She would also have to prove (for damages, not to prove the retaliation happened) that the damages to her brand sales and reputation are due to the retaliation and not other factors.

Too bad Justin didn’t consult with a lawyer who would have told him this was a dumb*ss move …

Funny, because just like during the filming of the movie, I think he felt cornered and like he had nowhere to go. He hired Melissa Nathan after Ryan Reynolds went to WME and called him a sexual predator — shouldn’t that really help his case? I don’t know how a court will see that though.

[Anonymous]

Also, for Blake to prove the retaliation claim, will she also have to prove sexual harassment occurred? I keep hearing different things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to talk about the retaliation claim. I still think Blake's PR mistakes were largely self-inflicted. But reading Blake's complaint, there are some texts confirming Jed Wallace did do work, and if you read Justin's lawsuit, the only thing I get out of that is that they didn't use bots -- which still doesn't mean they couldn't have planted stories.

For example, in a text from Jennifer Abel, according to Blake Lively’s complaint, she says this: “We've also started to see a shift on social, due largely to Jed and his team's
efforts to shift the narrative towards shining a spotlight on Blake and Ryan.”

What do lawyers have to say to that? Is that problematic for you, or does it still fail to pass muster given that it seems Justin was doing this to protect his reputation and it wasn't in retaliation to the SH claims?

I used to do sexual harassment/retaliation cases and you are totally right that this appears to be (1) retaliatory and (2) damaging. It has always been her strongest argument. But there’s a lot more she still has to prove - especially that the retaliation was due to her harassment complaint, which is not actually totally clear. She would also have to prove (for damages, not to prove the retaliation happened) that the damages to her brand sales and reputation are due to the retaliation and not other factors.

Too bad Justin didn’t consult with a lawyer who would have told him this was a dumb*ss move …

Funny, because just like during the filming of the movie, I think he felt cornered and like he had nowhere to go. He hired Melissa Nathan after Ryan Reynolds went to WME and called him a sexual predator — shouldn’t that really help his case? I don’t know how a court will see that though.

But presumably he had the option to pursue a different remedy (e.g., file a defamation claim). That, of course, would have then prompted her to go public with her sexual harassment claims, which is what he was trying to avoid. But if the claims were BS, then he still could have defended those with all his evidence. He made a dicey gamble there, and it may cost him.