Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

I saw something today about how the metadata on the NYT story showed that they had the info from lively’s team days before the California complaint was filed. Can anyone weigh in on whether that would have any impact on the defamation or false light claims? The YouTube video was tying it to the gag order request, but I was curious if it might have any larger implications. Or does it not matter at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was the Blake Lively thread locked?

Anyways, a lawyer (or at least one claiming to be) said Justin could have a case if the NYTimes published texts about him and then excluded ones right after if they said "just kidding!" or something.

There actually is kind of an instance of that where a PR person texts that Justin whispered in someone's ear and did other disgusting things...but the NYT excludes the portion where the PR says these are all lies.

To complicate matters even further, I don't see that particular text chain in the piece. I don't know if they updated the story or if they never had it in there in the first place; however, the main NYT reporter for the story did talk this misleading text chain in an Insta post.

They still have to show “actual malice” by the NYT. that high standard was developed specifically to be a sort of safe harbor for the media to make mistakes and yes, even do crappy reporting. because without it, it would be very hard to protect the press from constant litigation and they would withhold a lot of reporting.

People always say this, but it’s not really the full picture at all. The reality is that most journalistic mistakes don’t end up with defamation claims because most people don’t have the money to litigate and these cases are long and slow. But if you have $ to take it to the mat- which Baldoni and his backers seem to- you know you will end up in front of a jury of random people, many of whom don’t trust the ‘main stream media’.

See last year’s Fox old dominion case with a last minute settlement that approached a billion dollars. See the recent Trump settlement for 15m over the difference between rape and sexual assault. Etc

That's a huge difference legally. They stated he was found liable for rape when he wasn't. It probably was just a slip of the tongue because the concepts of rape and sexual abuse are similar and most people use interchange them all the time, but ABC certainly had good reason not to want to produce discovery on all documents mentioning "Trump" because yeah, I'm sure there was lots of malice there from their staff. Not at all the same thing as NYT not giving Baldoni a more balanced treatment or cherry picking from hundreds of texts without giving full and complete context.

But Trump is the most public figure there is, and sexual abuse/assault or whatever it was is almost the same. You also have to prove damages in a defamation claim. What were trumps damages?? lol.

In this case, the Ps can show concrete harm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw something today about how the metadata on the NYT story showed that they had the info from lively’s team days before the California complaint was filed. Can anyone weigh in on whether that would have any impact on the defamation or false light claims? The YouTube video was tying it to the gag order request, but I was curious if it might have any larger implications. Or does it not matter at all?

Yes, it could matters. It could be used to show state of mind, and also that they had time to get a fuller picture from Baldonis side. The NYT didn’t just happen to be covering a newsworthy lawsuit (which is a defense to a defamation claim if it’s ’fairly reported’ which arguably this wasn’t), this implies there was collaboration and intent to run this story in an unflattering way towards Baldoni and the PR folks.

When was the last time the NYT ran to report on a he said/she said EEO claim by two B/C list celebrities? They’re not TMZ. They seemed to want to run this as a follow up angle on#metoo and they messed up royally, imo.

[Anonymous]

^ matter

[Anonymous]

https://variety.com/2025/film/news/justin-baldoni-blake-lively-trial-date-march-2026-1236287921/

Hi can someone explain how the trial date has been given so soon? Is it because it's a federal case?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw something today about how the metadata on the NYT story showed that they had the info from lively’s team days before the California complaint was filed. Can anyone weigh in on whether that would have any impact on the defamation or false light claims? The YouTube video was tying it to the gag order request, but I was curious if it might have any larger implications. Or does it not matter at all?

seriously? that's more than half the game -- giving reporters info in advance so they can "break" the news as a "scoop" they've been primed and prepped for well before when an official filing, announcement, you name it takes place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw something today about how the metadata on the NYT story showed that they had the info from lively’s team days before the California complaint was filed. Can anyone weigh in on whether that would have any impact on the defamation or false light claims? The YouTube video was tying it to the gag order request, but I was curious if it might have any larger implications. Or does it not matter at all?

Yes, it could matters. It could be used to show state of mind, and also that they had time to get a fuller picture from Baldonis side. The NYT didn’t just happen to be covering a newsworthy lawsuit (which is a defense to a defamation claim if it’s ’fairly reported’ which arguably this wasn’t), this implies there was collaboration and intent to run this story in an unflattering way towards Baldoni and the PR folks.

When was the last time the NYT ran to report on a he said/she said EEO claim by two B/C list celebrities? They’re not TMZ. They seemed to want to run this as a follow up angle on#metoo and they messed up royally, imo.

I agree with your whole post but especially the bolded. They wanted a #metoo story and BL wanted a #metoo moment.

[Anonymous]

Jason should be thanking Blake. Never heard of him before and now he is on the map.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://variety.com/2025/film/news/justin-baldoni-blake-lively-trial-date-march-2026-1236287921/

Hi can someone explain how the trial date has been given so soon? Is it because it's a federal case?

That’s very fast, and neither side would want it that fast, most likely. But the judge is putting pressure on them to settle and STFU

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw something today about how the metadata on the NYT story showed that they had the info from lively’s team days before the California complaint was filed. Can anyone weigh in on whether that would have any impact on the defamation or false light claims? The YouTube video was tying it to the gag order request, but I was curious if it might have any larger implications. Or does it not matter at all?

It should cut against Lively's request for a gag order because it would indicate she's been leaking things herself (I hope she doesn't get the gag order, because I want more leaks!). I don't think it makes a huge difference to the defamation case. Newspapers are allowed to be leaked things and report on them in biased ways that are unflattering to the respondent. It could be part of a pattern alleging reckless disregard, but it's not very strong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has been amicable, so let's not let it get derailed by talking about posters, however frustrating they may be.

I can see where a false light claim would be easier than a defamation claim insofar as you don't have to prove falsity, but I agree with PP that a celebrity can't use it do an end run as in "this was technically true [the existence of the complaint and texts] but it made me look bad." Most jurisdictions seem to still require actual malice for false light claims involving public figures, and that's the part Baldoni will find difficult to prove.

But actual malice also includes ‘reckless disregard for the truth’. Can’t the Plaintiffs show that ignoring the full context of the texts shows that recklessness? It would be for a jury to decide that issue, and media defendants aren’t popular at trial

“Reckless” anything is pretty hard to prove. It would be something like the NYTimes printing a tip they received in crayon from a drunk guy in Times Square. making a mistake or not being careful is not “reckless.”

I think you’re guessing here. That determination is made by a jury and juries are not at all precise, and can easily be swayed by emotions (who they like, who they don’t, what they think of the media etc). You are making a big leap by assuming no jury could find that standard was met. Aside from the fact that the plaintiffs other than Baldoni may be found to be private figures

no, it doesn’t go to a jury if it is legally insufficient.

Do you mean like a summary judgment motion? Do you know how often they’re successful in defamation cases that get that far? (After discovery and depo etc)

do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was the Blake Lively thread locked?

Anyways, a lawyer (or at least one claiming to be) said Justin could have a case if the NYTimes published texts about him and then excluded ones right after if they said "just kidding!" or something.

There actually is kind of an instance of that where a PR person texts that Justin whispered in someone's ear and did other disgusting things...but the NYT excludes the portion where the PR says these are all lies.

To complicate matters even further, I don't see that particular text chain in the piece. I don't know if they updated the story or if they never had it in there in the first place; however, the main NYT reporter for the story did talk this misleading text chain in an Insta post.

They still have to show “actual malice” by the NYT. that high standard was developed specifically to be a sort of safe harbor for the media to make mistakes and yes, even do crappy reporting. because without it, it would be very hard to protect the press from constant litigation and they would withhold a lot of reporting.

People always say this, but it’s not really the full picture at all. The reality is that most journalistic mistakes don’t end up with defamation claims because most people don’t have the money to litigate and these cases are long and slow. But if you have $ to take it to the mat- which Baldoni and his backers seem to- you know you will end up in front of a jury of random people, many of whom don’t trust the ‘main stream media’.

See last year’s Fox old dominion case with a last minute settlement that approached a billion dollars. See the recent Trump settlement for 15m over the difference between rape and sexual assault. Etc

Those cases had MUCH stronger facts - they were outright fabrications by FOX, with a record showing FOX knew they were false. The NYTimes publishes damaging stories about very rich people ALL the time. It is very, very difficult to prove a defamation claim.

Well, according to Fox it was opinion and they were just commenting on a matter of public interest.

What false stories about famous people has the NYT published? Genuinely curious.

The NYT is still litigating a case with Sara Palin over one line in an op ed essentially.

you’re assuming the story about Baldoni was “false.” that’s a huge stretch. Again the standard is not even “false” - it’s “actual malice.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was the Blake Lively thread locked?

Anyways, a lawyer (or at least one claiming to be) said Justin could have a case if the NYTimes published texts about him and then excluded ones right after if they said "just kidding!" or something.

There actually is kind of an instance of that where a PR person texts that Justin whispered in someone's ear and did other disgusting things...but the NYT excludes the portion where the PR says these are all lies.

To complicate matters even further, I don't see that particular text chain in the piece. I don't know if they updated the story or if they never had it in there in the first place; however, the main NYT reporter for the story did talk this misleading text chain in an Insta post.

They still have to show “actual malice” by the NYT. that high standard was developed specifically to be a sort of safe harbor for the media to make mistakes and yes, even do crappy reporting. because without it, it would be very hard to protect the press from constant litigation and they would withhold a lot of reporting.

People always say this, but it’s not really the full picture at all. The reality is that most journalistic mistakes don’t end up with defamation claims because most people don’t have the money to litigate and these cases are long and slow. But if you have $ to take it to the mat- which Baldoni and his backers seem to- you know you will end up in front of a jury of random people, many of whom don’t trust the ‘main stream media’.

See last year’s Fox old dominion case with a last minute settlement that approached a billion dollars. See the recent Trump settlement for 15m over the difference between rape and sexual assault. Etc

Those cases had MUCH stronger facts - they were outright fabrications by FOX, with a record showing FOX knew they were false. The NYTimes publishes damaging stories about very rich people ALL the time. It is very, very difficult to prove a defamation claim.

also no, you don’t just get to “take a case to a jury” because you have money. The judge decides if the facts are legally sufficient as alleged at the motion to dismiss stage, and if there are any genuine issues in dispute at the summary judgment stage. In a 1A case there are many many legal precedents to draw on for the judge to dispose of the case as a matter of law.

Most individuals can’t afford to bring lawsuits. This case will likely survive a MTD and then it’s on. I don’t think you know this area of the law very well

lol the NYTimes writes about rich and famous people *all the time.* There is not even anything alleged that would be legally sufficient to show actual malice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was the Blake Lively thread locked?

Anyways, a lawyer (or at least one claiming to be) said Justin could have a case if the NYTimes published texts about him and then excluded ones right after if they said "just kidding!" or something.

There actually is kind of an instance of that where a PR person texts that Justin whispered in someone's ear and did other disgusting things...but the NYT excludes the portion where the PR says these are all lies.

To complicate matters even further, I don't see that particular text chain in the piece. I don't know if they updated the story or if they never had it in there in the first place; however, the main NYT reporter for the story did talk this misleading text chain in an Insta post.

They still have to show “actual malice” by the NYT. that high standard was developed specifically to be a sort of safe harbor for the media to make mistakes and yes, even do crappy reporting. because without it, it would be very hard to protect the press from constant litigation and they would withhold a lot of reporting.

People always say this, but it’s not really the full picture at all. The reality is that most journalistic mistakes don’t end up with defamation claims because most people don’t have the money to litigate and these cases are long and slow. But if you have $ to take it to the mat- which Baldoni and his backers seem to- you know you will end up in front of a jury of random people, many of whom don’t trust the ‘main stream media’.

See last year’s Fox old dominion case with a last minute settlement that approached a billion dollars. See the recent Trump settlement for 15m over the difference between rape and sexual assault. Etc

Those cases had MUCH stronger facts - they were outright fabrications by FOX, with a record showing FOX knew they were false. The NYTimes publishes damaging stories about very rich people ALL the time. It is very, very difficult to prove a defamation claim.

also no, you don’t just get to “take a case to a jury” because you have money. The judge decides if the facts are legally sufficient as alleged at the motion to dismiss stage, and if there are any genuine issues in dispute at the summary judgment stage. In a 1A case there are many many legal precedents to draw on for the judge to dispose of the case as a matter of law.

Btw, no media lawyer says things like ‘1A case’. Try harder :)

You feel free to try harder and post the case cites in the relevant jurisdictions and how the facts stack up against Baldoni’s complaint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was the Blake Lively thread locked?

Anyways, a lawyer (or at least one claiming to be) said Justin could have a case if the NYTimes published texts about him and then excluded ones right after if they said "just kidding!" or something.

There actually is kind of an instance of that where a PR person texts that Justin whispered in someone's ear and did other disgusting things...but the NYT excludes the portion where the PR says these are all lies.

To complicate matters even further, I don't see that particular text chain in the piece. I don't know if they updated the story or if they never had it in there in the first place; however, the main NYT reporter for the story did talk this misleading text chain in an Insta post.

They still have to show “actual malice” by the NYT. that high standard was developed specifically to be a sort of safe harbor for the media to make mistakes and yes, even do crappy reporting. because without it, it would be very hard to protect the press from constant litigation and they would withhold a lot of reporting.

People always say this, but it’s not really the full picture at all. The reality is that most journalistic mistakes don’t end up with defamation claims because most people don’t have the money to litigate and these cases are long and slow. But if you have $ to take it to the mat- which Baldoni and his backers seem to- you know you will end up in front of a jury of random people, many of whom don’t trust the ‘main stream media’.

See last year’s Fox old dominion case with a last minute settlement that approached a billion dollars. See the recent Trump settlement for 15m over the difference between rape and sexual assault. Etc

That's a huge difference legally. They stated he was found liable for rape when he wasn't. It probably was just a slip of the tongue because the concepts of rape and sexual abuse are similar and most people use interchange them all the time, but ABC certainly had good reason not to want to produce discovery on all documents mentioning "Trump" because yeah, I'm sure there was lots of malice there from their staff. Not at all the same thing as NYT not giving Baldoni a more balanced treatment or cherry picking from hundreds of texts without giving full and complete context.

+100.