Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the motion yet but it's probably based on the same issue of failing to articulate specific claims against Reynolds other than he engaged in some vague conspiracy with the other Lively parties against the Wayfarer parties. But IIRC Baldoni does plead some specifics against Reynolds like that Reynolds told his agent he was a sexual predator, but don't remember if that was in the complaint or the stupid timeline.

Actually, no. One of the advantages of the MTDs coming out in phases like this is that the subsequent MTDs can simply incorporate the arguments about the group pleading issue from the prior MTDs, and then can use their space in their MTD to make arguments specific to their own situation. RR does this here, and then spend most of the MTD directly addressing the allegations specific to Reynolds. Including:
- that Reynold's statements about Baldoni were allowable opinion based on fact.
- that Baldoni has publicly, via his book and podcast, admitted to behavior that would justify labeling him a "sexual predator" (his porn addiction, his confessions about violating consent or mistreating women in the past) and thus Reynold's comments cannot be defamatory
- that Baldoni fails to allege a claim for tortious interference because his complaint fails to produce the WME contract, identify the contract provisions that were allegedly breached, or allege how Reynolds' actions helped to procure any breach of contract. These are required elements for a tortious interference claim.

The group pleading issue is definitely still a problem, but Baldoni has issues here with failure to allege a fact pattern that meets the elements of defamation or tortious interference for Reynolds.

And then the handy thing here is that when Lively files her MTD in the next day or so, she will incorporate the group pleading arguments asserted by Sloane AND the defamation and tortuous interference arguments asserted by Reynolds, and then make additional arguments regarding the allegations that pertain to her but not the others.

MTDs are limited in length, so doing it this way, and ensuring the MTDs come out in the order they have, is enabling the Lively side to use the best use of the space they have to make a more comprehensive argument about the weakness of Wayfarer's claims. Ultimately the judge will likely rule on all these MTDs at the same time, especially with so many overlapping claims and pleading issues that are universal across defendants in the counter-complaint.

I'm the PP. I hadn't read Reynolds MTD when I posted but have now done so and I agree with your analysis. The use of Baldoni's statements against him is really quite clever. You almost want to feel bad for him because he made those phony baloney male feminist statements to make himself look good, never realizing they would be used against him. They also make an excellent argument about what actual malice means, and that the complaint's reference to RR having "deep disdain" for JB actually defeats a claim of actual malice, because the legal definition of actual malice isn't really what we know as malice but an allegation that he doubted the veracity of his statements, and they argue RR clearly believed JB was a sexual predator (they turn the yelling at JB and the Nicepool character back against JB, as evidence that RR fully believed what he was saying, and thus, did not act with actual malice). It's one of those legal bizarro world arguments where the opposite of what you'd think makes sense is the legally correct answer.

You must have blinders on. RR’s MTD is the most unhinged document I’ve ever read. Seems like his lawyers can’t control their client. The stuff from JB’s book and podcast were taken out of context and are also not admissible in an MTD because they weren’t in the FAC. All of that stuff (and likely the entire MTD) is for the press. Unfortunately I think it makes Ryan look like even more of a bully. It’s basically 38 pages of you deserved it. He used the MTD to double down on calling JB a predator (when Ryan has done much worse than JB ever could, including admitting to grabbing Olivia Wilde’s breast after finishing a scene and then joking about it like it was ok) and calling JB thin skinned for taking offense to nice pool. RR is a clinical narcissist. No way this gets dismissed.

Here’s what I think will happen, judge Liman seems fair so I think there’s a chance he rules on all MTDs at once, dismisses NYT and maybe sloane without prejudice, but let’s the rest proceed. That way he minimizes any public perception of unfairness. He’s already said there’s enormous public interest in the case, signaling a need to be very above board in his rulings, and has warned lively that everything she’s trying to protect will come out at trial (meaning he thinks there is likely to be a trial if there’s no settlement).

RR didn't write the documents. The motion addresses the reasons the book and podcast were included, including that Baldoni's complaint said anyone who knows him, would know about his book (in reference to the porn addiction). The lawyers cite caselaw which says that the full scope of documents referenced, incorporated, or integral to the complaint may be considered by the court. That was an own goal by Baldoni if he didn't want that stuff to come in. Of course Reynolds is going to double down - anyone accused of defamation is going to argue the statements were true and/or protected opinion, and then add on the actual malice argument since Baldoni is a public figure. Another argument they make is the statements by Reynolds may be past the statute of limitations which is only one year, but cannot be known yet because Baldoni has not pled with specificity when and where these statements were made. All in all, it's a much stronger document than I expected. They also discuss the DCUM favorite choice of law issue noting that as to Reynolds, he is a New York resident whose alleged acts took place in New York, and make a good case to apply NY law to the claims against him.

We’ll go round and round, as I’m convinced you’re on BL’s PR team.

DP. Stop infecting the thread with these ridiculous conspiracy theories. Cut it out. Enough.

It took PP three pages and multiple soliloquies to admit the book and pod statement violate the rules and were for PR b/c Reynolds is losing the PR battle. PP is infecting the thread with these long, repetitive cherry-picked posts. It’s exhausting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the motion yet but it's probably based on the same issue of failing to articulate specific claims against Reynolds other than he engaged in some vague conspiracy with the other Lively parties against the Wayfarer parties. But IIRC Baldoni does plead some specifics against Reynolds like that Reynolds told his agent he was a sexual predator, but don't remember if that was in the complaint or the stupid timeline.

Actually, no. One of the advantages of the MTDs coming out in phases like this is that the subsequent MTDs can simply incorporate the arguments about the group pleading issue from the prior MTDs, and then can use their space in their MTD to make arguments specific to their own situation. RR does this here, and then spend most of the MTD directly addressing the allegations specific to Reynolds. Including:
- that Reynold's statements about Baldoni were allowable opinion based on fact.
- that Baldoni has publicly, via his book and podcast, admitted to behavior that would justify labeling him a "sexual predator" (his porn addiction, his confessions about violating consent or mistreating women in the past) and thus Reynold's comments cannot be defamatory
- that Baldoni fails to allege a claim for tortious interference because his complaint fails to produce the WME contract, identify the contract provisions that were allegedly breached, or allege how Reynolds' actions helped to procure any breach of contract. These are required elements for a tortious interference claim.

The group pleading issue is definitely still a problem, but Baldoni has issues here with failure to allege a fact pattern that meets the elements of defamation or tortious interference for Reynolds.

And then the handy thing here is that when Lively files her MTD in the next day or so, she will incorporate the group pleading arguments asserted by Sloane AND the defamation and tortuous interference arguments asserted by Reynolds, and then make additional arguments regarding the allegations that pertain to her but not the others.

MTDs are limited in length, so doing it this way, and ensuring the MTDs come out in the order they have, is enabling the Lively side to use the best use of the space they have to make a more comprehensive argument about the weakness of Wayfarer's claims. Ultimately the judge will likely rule on all these MTDs at the same time, especially with so many overlapping claims and pleading issues that are universal across defendants in the counter-complaint.

I'm the PP. I hadn't read Reynolds MTD when I posted but have now done so and I agree with your analysis. The use of Baldoni's statements against him is really quite clever. You almost want to feel bad for him because he made those phony baloney male feminist statements to make himself look good, never realizing they would be used against him. They also make an excellent argument about what actual malice means, and that the complaint's reference to RR having "deep disdain" for JB actually defeats a claim of actual malice, because the legal definition of actual malice isn't really what we know as malice but an allegation that he doubted the veracity of his statements, and they argue RR clearly believed JB was a sexual predator (they turn the yelling at JB and the Nicepool character back against JB, as evidence that RR fully believed what he was saying, and thus, did not act with actual malice). It's one of those legal bizarro world arguments where the opposite of what you'd think makes sense is the legally correct answer.

You must have blinders on. RR’s MTD is the most unhinged document I’ve ever read. Seems like his lawyers can’t control their client. The stuff from JB’s book and podcast were taken out of context and are also not admissible in an MTD because they weren’t in the FAC. All of that stuff (and likely the entire MTD) is for the press. Unfortunately I think it makes Ryan look like even more of a bully. It’s basically 38 pages of you deserved it. He used the MTD to double down on calling JB a predator (when Ryan has done much worse than JB ever could, including admitting to grabbing Olivia Wilde’s breast after finishing a scene and then joking about it like it was ok) and calling JB thin skinned for taking offense to nice pool. RR is a clinical narcissist. No way this gets dismissed.

Here’s what I think will happen, judge Liman seems fair so I think there’s a chance he rules on all MTDs at once, dismisses NYT and maybe sloane without prejudice, but let’s the rest proceed. That way he minimizes any public perception of unfairness. He’s already said there’s enormous public interest in the case, signaling a need to be very above board in his rulings, and has warned lively that everything she’s trying to protect will come out at trial (meaning he thinks there is likely to be a trial if there’s no settlement).

RR didn't write the documents. The motion addresses the reasons the book and podcast were included, including that Baldoni's complaint said anyone who knows him, would know about his book (in reference to the porn addiction). The lawyers cite caselaw which says that the full scope of documents referenced, incorporated, or integral to the complaint may be considered by the court. That was an own goal by Baldoni if he didn't want that stuff to come in. Of course Reynolds is going to double down - anyone accused of defamation is going to argue the statements were true and/or protected opinion, and then add on the actual malice argument since Baldoni is a public figure. Another argument they make is the statements by Reynolds may be past the statute of limitations which is only one year, but cannot be known yet because Baldoni has not pled with specificity when and where these statements were made. All in all, it's a much stronger document than I expected. They also discuss the DCUM favorite choice of law issue noting that as to Reynolds, he is a New York resident whose alleged acts took place in New York, and make a good case to apply NY law to the claims against him.

We’ll go round and round, as I’m convinced you’re on BL’s PR team.

DP. Stop infecting the thread with these ridiculous conspiracy theories. Cut it out. Enough.

It took PP three pages and multiple soliloquies to admit the book and pod statement violate the rules and were for PR b/c Reynolds is losing the PR battle. PP is infecting the thread with these long, repetitive cherry-picked posts. It’s exhausting.

You are assuming multiple posters are just one person.

I am the person who wrote that the book quotes probably do violate the rules and could be struck, but that Reynold's lawyers likely took a calculated risk to include them because it helps their PR.

But I'm not the poster you are replying to.

You need to wrap your head around the idea that the long posts digging into detailed analysis of the pleadings and legal strategy ARE the thread. It's not one person doing this, it's several. It's not killing the thread -- it's why most of us are here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the motion yet but it's probably based on the same issue of failing to articulate specific claims against Reynolds other than he engaged in some vague conspiracy with the other Lively parties against the Wayfarer parties. But IIRC Baldoni does plead some specifics against Reynolds like that Reynolds told his agent he was a sexual predator, but don't remember if that was in the complaint or the stupid timeline.

Actually, no. One of the advantages of the MTDs coming out in phases like this is that the subsequent MTDs can simply incorporate the arguments about the group pleading issue from the prior MTDs, and then can use their space in their MTD to make arguments specific to their own situation. RR does this here, and then spend most of the MTD directly addressing the allegations specific to Reynolds. Including:
- that Reynold's statements about Baldoni were allowable opinion based on fact.
- that Baldoni has publicly, via his book and podcast, admitted to behavior that would justify labeling him a "sexual predator" (his porn addiction, his confessions about violating consent or mistreating women in the past) and thus Reynold's comments cannot be defamatory
- that Baldoni fails to allege a claim for tortious interference because his complaint fails to produce the WME contract, identify the contract provisions that were allegedly breached, or allege how Reynolds' actions helped to procure any breach of contract. These are required elements for a tortious interference claim.

The group pleading issue is definitely still a problem, but Baldoni has issues here with failure to allege a fact pattern that meets the elements of defamation or tortious interference for Reynolds.

And then the handy thing here is that when Lively files her MTD in the next day or so, she will incorporate the group pleading arguments asserted by Sloane AND the defamation and tortuous interference arguments asserted by Reynolds, and then make additional arguments regarding the allegations that pertain to her but not the others.

MTDs are limited in length, so doing it this way, and ensuring the MTDs come out in the order they have, is enabling the Lively side to use the best use of the space they have to make a more comprehensive argument about the weakness of Wayfarer's claims. Ultimately the judge will likely rule on all these MTDs at the same time, especially with so many overlapping claims and pleading issues that are universal across defendants in the counter-complaint.

I'm the PP. I hadn't read Reynolds MTD when I posted but have now done so and I agree with your analysis. The use of Baldoni's statements against him is really quite clever. You almost want to feel bad for him because he made those phony baloney male feminist statements to make himself look good, never realizing they would be used against him. They also make an excellent argument about what actual malice means, and that the complaint's reference to RR having "deep disdain" for JB actually defeats a claim of actual malice, because the legal definition of actual malice isn't really what we know as malice but an allegation that he doubted the veracity of his statements, and they argue RR clearly believed JB was a sexual predator (they turn the yelling at JB and the Nicepool character back against JB, as evidence that RR fully believed what he was saying, and thus, did not act with actual malice). It's one of those legal bizarro world arguments where the opposite of what you'd think makes sense is the legally correct answer.

You must have blinders on. RR’s MTD is the most unhinged document I’ve ever read. Seems like his lawyers can’t control their client. The stuff from JB’s book and podcast were taken out of context and are also not admissible in an MTD because they weren’t in the FAC. All of that stuff (and likely the entire MTD) is for the press. Unfortunately I think it makes Ryan look like even more of a bully. It’s basically 38 pages of you deserved it. He used the MTD to double down on calling JB a predator (when Ryan has done much worse than JB ever could, including admitting to grabbing Olivia Wilde’s breast after finishing a scene and then joking about it like it was ok) and calling JB thin skinned for taking offense to nice pool. RR is a clinical narcissist. No way this gets dismissed.

Here’s what I think will happen, judge Liman seems fair so I think there’s a chance he rules on all MTDs at once, dismisses NYT and maybe sloane without prejudice, but let’s the rest proceed. That way he minimizes any public perception of unfairness. He’s already said there’s enormous public interest in the case, signaling a need to be very above board in his rulings, and has warned lively that everything she’s trying to protect will come out at trial (meaning he thinks there is likely to be a trial if there’s no settlement).

RR didn't write the documents. The motion addresses the reasons the book and podcast were included, including that Baldoni's complaint said anyone who knows him, would know about his book (in reference to the porn addiction). The lawyers cite caselaw which says that the full scope of documents referenced, incorporated, or integral to the complaint may be considered by the court. That was an own goal by Baldoni if he didn't want that stuff to come in. Of course Reynolds is going to double down - anyone accused of defamation is going to argue the statements were true and/or protected opinion, and then add on the actual malice argument since Baldoni is a public figure. Another argument they make is the statements by Reynolds may be past the statute of limitations which is only one year, but cannot be known yet because Baldoni has not pled with specificity when and where these statements were made. All in all, it's a much stronger document than I expected. They also discuss the DCUM favorite choice of law issue noting that as to Reynolds, he is a New York resident whose alleged acts took place in New York, and make a good case to apply NY law to the claims against him.

We’ll go round and round, as I’m convinced you’re on BL’s PR team.

DP. Stop infecting the thread with these ridiculous conspiracy theories. Cut it out. Enough.

It took PP three pages and multiple soliloquies to admit the book and pod statement violate the rules and were for PR b/c Reynolds is losing the PR battle. PP is infecting the thread with these long, repetitive cherry-picked posts. It’s exhausting.

You are assuming multiple posters are just one person.

I am the person who wrote that the book quotes probably do violate the rules and could be struck, but that Reynold's lawyers likely took a calculated risk to include them because it helps their PR.

But I'm not the poster you are replying to.

You need to wrap your head around the idea that the long posts digging into detailed analysis of the pleadings and legal strategy ARE the thread. It's not one person doing this, it's several. It's not killing the thread -- it's why most of us are here.

Dp, but agree the long posts are unnecessary. People could make their points much more succinctly. Most of the long posts get the law wrong anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the motion yet but it's probably based on the same issue of failing to articulate specific claims against Reynolds other than he engaged in some vague conspiracy with the other Lively parties against the Wayfarer parties. But IIRC Baldoni does plead some specifics against Reynolds like that Reynolds told his agent he was a sexual predator, but don't remember if that was in the complaint or the stupid timeline.

Actually, no. One of the advantages of the MTDs coming out in phases like this is that the subsequent MTDs can simply incorporate the arguments about the group pleading issue from the prior MTDs, and then can use their space in their MTD to make arguments specific to their own situation. RR does this here, and then spend most of the MTD directly addressing the allegations specific to Reynolds. Including:
- that Reynold's statements about Baldoni were allowable opinion based on fact.
- that Baldoni has publicly, via his book and podcast, admitted to behavior that would justify labeling him a "sexual predator" (his porn addiction, his confessions about violating consent or mistreating women in the past) and thus Reynold's comments cannot be defamatory
- that Baldoni fails to allege a claim for tortious interference because his complaint fails to produce the WME contract, identify the contract provisions that were allegedly breached, or allege how Reynolds' actions helped to procure any breach of contract. These are required elements for a tortious interference claim.

The group pleading issue is definitely still a problem, but Baldoni has issues here with failure to allege a fact pattern that meets the elements of defamation or tortious interference for Reynolds.

And then the handy thing here is that when Lively files her MTD in the next day or so, she will incorporate the group pleading arguments asserted by Sloane AND the defamation and tortuous interference arguments asserted by Reynolds, and then make additional arguments regarding the allegations that pertain to her but not the others.

MTDs are limited in length, so doing it this way, and ensuring the MTDs come out in the order they have, is enabling the Lively side to use the best use of the space they have to make a more comprehensive argument about the weakness of Wayfarer's claims. Ultimately the judge will likely rule on all these MTDs at the same time, especially with so many overlapping claims and pleading issues that are universal across defendants in the counter-complaint.

I'm the PP. I hadn't read Reynolds MTD when I posted but have now done so and I agree with your analysis. The use of Baldoni's statements against him is really quite clever. You almost want to feel bad for him because he made those phony baloney male feminist statements to make himself look good, never realizing they would be used against him. They also make an excellent argument about what actual malice means, and that the complaint's reference to RR having "deep disdain" for JB actually defeats a claim of actual malice, because the legal definition of actual malice isn't really what we know as malice but an allegation that he doubted the veracity of his statements, and they argue RR clearly believed JB was a sexual predator (they turn the yelling at JB and the Nicepool character back against JB, as evidence that RR fully believed what he was saying, and thus, did not act with actual malice). It's one of those legal bizarro world arguments where the opposite of what you'd think makes sense is the legally correct answer.

You must have blinders on. RR’s MTD is the most unhinged document I’ve ever read. Seems like his lawyers can’t control their client. The stuff from JB’s book and podcast were taken out of context and are also not admissible in an MTD because they weren’t in the FAC. All of that stuff (and likely the entire MTD) is for the press. Unfortunately I think it makes Ryan look like even more of a bully. It’s basically 38 pages of you deserved it. He used the MTD to double down on calling JB a predator (when Ryan has done much worse than JB ever could, including admitting to grabbing Olivia Wilde’s breast after finishing a scene and then joking about it like it was ok) and calling JB thin skinned for taking offense to nice pool. RR is a clinical narcissist. No way this gets dismissed.

Here’s what I think will happen, judge Liman seems fair so I think there’s a chance he rules on all MTDs at once, dismisses NYT and maybe sloane without prejudice, but let’s the rest proceed. That way he minimizes any public perception of unfairness. He’s already said there’s enormous public interest in the case, signaling a need to be very above board in his rulings, and has warned lively that everything she’s trying to protect will come out at trial (meaning he thinks there is likely to be a trial if there’s no settlement).

RR didn't write the documents. The motion addresses the reasons the book and podcast were included, including that Baldoni's complaint said anyone who knows him, would know about his book (in reference to the porn addiction). The lawyers cite caselaw which says that the full scope of documents referenced, incorporated, or integral to the complaint may be considered by the court. That was an own goal by Baldoni if he didn't want that stuff to come in. Of course Reynolds is going to double down - anyone accused of defamation is going to argue the statements were true and/or protected opinion, and then add on the actual malice argument since Baldoni is a public figure. Another argument they make is the statements by Reynolds may be past the statute of limitations which is only one year, but cannot be known yet because Baldoni has not pled with specificity when and where these statements were made. All in all, it's a much stronger document than I expected. They also discuss the DCUM favorite choice of law issue noting that as to Reynolds, he is a New York resident whose alleged acts took place in New York, and make a good case to apply NY law to the claims against him.

We’ll go round and round, as I’m convinced you’re on BL’s PR team.

DP. Stop infecting the thread with these ridiculous conspiracy theories. Cut it out. Enough.

It took PP three pages and multiple soliloquies to admit the book and pod statement violate the rules and were for PR b/c Reynolds is losing the PR battle. PP is infecting the thread with these long, repetitive cherry-picked posts. It’s exhausting.

You are assuming multiple posters are just one person.

I am the person who wrote that the book quotes probably do violate the rules and could be struck, but that Reynold's lawyers likely took a calculated risk to include them because it helps their PR.

But I'm not the poster you are replying to.

You need to wrap your head around the idea that the long posts digging into detailed analysis of the pleadings and legal strategy ARE the thread. It's not one person doing this, it's several. It's not killing the thread -- it's why most of us are here.

Dp, but agree the long posts are unnecessary. People could make their points much more succinctly. Most of the long posts get the law wrong anyway.

Not PP you are responding to. I like the long posts. I find them informative and I learn a lot from them. Some of the details give me info I was not aware of. They are in compliance with DCUM rules. What’s not in compliance are these personal attacks every 50 pages and the complaints about wild conspiracy theories about posters in thread instead of in Website feedback. That person should stop that, it’s ruining the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the motion yet but it's probably based on the same issue of failing to articulate specific claims against Reynolds other than he engaged in some vague conspiracy with the other Lively parties against the Wayfarer parties. But IIRC Baldoni does plead some specifics against Reynolds like that Reynolds told his agent he was a sexual predator, but don't remember if that was in the complaint or the stupid timeline.

Actually, no. One of the advantages of the MTDs coming out in phases like this is that the subsequent MTDs can simply incorporate the arguments about the group pleading issue from the prior MTDs, and then can use their space in their MTD to make arguments specific to their own situation. RR does this here, and then spend most of the MTD directly addressing the allegations specific to Reynolds. Including:
- that Reynold's statements about Baldoni were allowable opinion based on fact.
- that Baldoni has publicly, via his book and podcast, admitted to behavior that would justify labeling him a "sexual predator" (his porn addiction, his confessions about violating consent or mistreating women in the past) and thus Reynold's comments cannot be defamatory
- that Baldoni fails to allege a claim for tortious interference because his complaint fails to produce the WME contract, identify the contract provisions that were allegedly breached, or allege how Reynolds' actions helped to procure any breach of contract. These are required elements for a tortious interference claim.

The group pleading issue is definitely still a problem, but Baldoni has issues here with failure to allege a fact pattern that meets the elements of defamation or tortious interference for Reynolds.

And then the handy thing here is that when Lively files her MTD in the next day or so, she will incorporate the group pleading arguments asserted by Sloane AND the defamation and tortuous interference arguments asserted by Reynolds, and then make additional arguments regarding the allegations that pertain to her but not the others.

MTDs are limited in length, so doing it this way, and ensuring the MTDs come out in the order they have, is enabling the Lively side to use the best use of the space they have to make a more comprehensive argument about the weakness of Wayfarer's claims. Ultimately the judge will likely rule on all these MTDs at the same time, especially with so many overlapping claims and pleading issues that are universal across defendants in the counter-complaint.

I'm the PP. I hadn't read Reynolds MTD when I posted but have now done so and I agree with your analysis. The use of Baldoni's statements against him is really quite clever. You almost want to feel bad for him because he made those phony baloney male feminist statements to make himself look good, never realizing they would be used against him. They also make an excellent argument about what actual malice means, and that the complaint's reference to RR having "deep disdain" for JB actually defeats a claim of actual malice, because the legal definition of actual malice isn't really what we know as malice but an allegation that he doubted the veracity of his statements, and they argue RR clearly believed JB was a sexual predator (they turn the yelling at JB and the Nicepool character back against JB, as evidence that RR fully believed what he was saying, and thus, did not act with actual malice). It's one of those legal bizarro world arguments where the opposite of what you'd think makes sense is the legally correct answer.

You must have blinders on. RR’s MTD is the most unhinged document I’ve ever read. Seems like his lawyers can’t control their client. The stuff from JB’s book and podcast were taken out of context and are also not admissible in an MTD because they weren’t in the FAC. All of that stuff (and likely the entire MTD) is for the press. Unfortunately I think it makes Ryan look like even more of a bully. It’s basically 38 pages of you deserved it. He used the MTD to double down on calling JB a predator (when Ryan has done much worse than JB ever could, including admitting to grabbing Olivia Wilde’s breast after finishing a scene and then joking about it like it was ok) and calling JB thin skinned for taking offense to nice pool. RR is a clinical narcissist. No way this gets dismissed.

Here’s what I think will happen, judge Liman seems fair so I think there’s a chance he rules on all MTDs at once, dismisses NYT and maybe sloane without prejudice, but let’s the rest proceed. That way he minimizes any public perception of unfairness. He’s already said there’s enormous public interest in the case, signaling a need to be very above board in his rulings, and has warned lively that everything she’s trying to protect will come out at trial (meaning he thinks there is likely to be a trial if there’s no settlement).

RR didn't write the documents. The motion addresses the reasons the book and podcast were included, including that Baldoni's complaint said anyone who knows him, would know about his book (in reference to the porn addiction). The lawyers cite caselaw which says that the full scope of documents referenced, incorporated, or integral to the complaint may be considered by the court. That was an own goal by Baldoni if he didn't want that stuff to come in. Of course Reynolds is going to double down - anyone accused of defamation is going to argue the statements were true and/or protected opinion, and then add on the actual malice argument since Baldoni is a public figure. Another argument they make is the statements by Reynolds may be past the statute of limitations which is only one year, but cannot be known yet because Baldoni has not pled with specificity when and where these statements were made. All in all, it's a much stronger document than I expected. They also discuss the DCUM favorite choice of law issue noting that as to Reynolds, he is a New York resident whose alleged acts took place in New York, and make a good case to apply NY law to the claims against him.

We’ll go round and round, as I’m convinced you’re on BL’s PR team.

DP. Stop infecting the thread with these ridiculous conspiracy theories. Cut it out. Enough.

It took PP three pages and multiple soliloquies to admit the book and pod statement violate the rules and were for PR b/c Reynolds is losing the PR battle. PP is infecting the thread with these long, repetitive cherry-picked posts. It’s exhausting.

You are assuming multiple posters are just one person.

I am the person who wrote that the book quotes probably do violate the rules and could be struck, but that Reynold's lawyers likely took a calculated risk to include them because it helps their PR.

But I'm not the poster you are replying to.

You need to wrap your head around the idea that the long posts digging into detailed analysis of the pleadings and legal strategy ARE the thread. It's not one person doing this, it's several. It's not killing the thread -- it's why most of us are here.

Dp, but agree the long posts are unnecessary. People could make their points much more succinctly. Most of the long posts get the law wrong anyway.

Not PP you are responding to. I like the long posts. I find them informative and I learn a lot from them. Some of the details give me info I was not aware of. They are in compliance with DCUM rules. What’s not in compliance are these personal attacks every 50 pages and the complaints about wild conspiracy theories about posters in thread instead of in Website feedback. That person should stop that, it’s ruining the thread.

Hide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the motion yet but it's probably based on the same issue of failing to articulate specific claims against Reynolds other than he engaged in some vague conspiracy with the other Lively parties against the Wayfarer parties. But IIRC Baldoni does plead some specifics against Reynolds like that Reynolds told his agent he was a sexual predator, but don't remember if that was in the complaint or the stupid timeline.

Actually, no. One of the advantages of the MTDs coming out in phases like this is that the subsequent MTDs can simply incorporate the arguments about the group pleading issue from the prior MTDs, and then can use their space in their MTD to make arguments specific to their own situation. RR does this here, and then spend most of the MTD directly addressing the allegations specific to Reynolds. Including:
- that Reynold's statements about Baldoni were allowable opinion based on fact.
- that Baldoni has publicly, via his book and podcast, admitted to behavior that would justify labeling him a "sexual predator" (his porn addiction, his confessions about violating consent or mistreating women in the past) and thus Reynold's comments cannot be defamatory
- that Baldoni fails to allege a claim for tortious interference because his complaint fails to produce the WME contract, identify the contract provisions that were allegedly breached, or allege how Reynolds' actions helped to procure any breach of contract. These are required elements for a tortious interference claim.

The group pleading issue is definitely still a problem, but Baldoni has issues here with failure to allege a fact pattern that meets the elements of defamation or tortious interference for Reynolds.

And then the handy thing here is that when Lively files her MTD in the next day or so, she will incorporate the group pleading arguments asserted by Sloane AND the defamation and tortuous interference arguments asserted by Reynolds, and then make additional arguments regarding the allegations that pertain to her but not the others.

MTDs are limited in length, so doing it this way, and ensuring the MTDs come out in the order they have, is enabling the Lively side to use the best use of the space they have to make a more comprehensive argument about the weakness of Wayfarer's claims. Ultimately the judge will likely rule on all these MTDs at the same time, especially with so many overlapping claims and pleading issues that are universal across defendants in the counter-complaint.

I'm the PP. I hadn't read Reynolds MTD when I posted but have now done so and I agree with your analysis. The use of Baldoni's statements against him is really quite clever. You almost want to feel bad for him because he made those phony baloney male feminist statements to make himself look good, never realizing they would be used against him. They also make an excellent argument about what actual malice means, and that the complaint's reference to RR having "deep disdain" for JB actually defeats a claim of actual malice, because the legal definition of actual malice isn't really what we know as malice but an allegation that he doubted the veracity of his statements, and they argue RR clearly believed JB was a sexual predator (they turn the yelling at JB and the Nicepool character back against JB, as evidence that RR fully believed what he was saying, and thus, did not act with actual malice). It's one of those legal bizarro world arguments where the opposite of what you'd think makes sense is the legally correct answer.

You must have blinders on. RR’s MTD is the most unhinged document I’ve ever read. Seems like his lawyers can’t control their client. The stuff from JB’s book and podcast were taken out of context and are also not admissible in an MTD because they weren’t in the FAC. All of that stuff (and likely the entire MTD) is for the press. Unfortunately I think it makes Ryan look like even more of a bully. It’s basically 38 pages of you deserved it. He used the MTD to double down on calling JB a predator (when Ryan has done much worse than JB ever could, including admitting to grabbing Olivia Wilde’s breast after finishing a scene and then joking about it like it was ok) and calling JB thin skinned for taking offense to nice pool. RR is a clinical narcissist. No way this gets dismissed.

Here’s what I think will happen, judge Liman seems fair so I think there’s a chance he rules on all MTDs at once, dismisses NYT and maybe sloane without prejudice, but let’s the rest proceed. That way he minimizes any public perception of unfairness. He’s already said there’s enormous public interest in the case, signaling a need to be very above board in his rulings, and has warned lively that everything she’s trying to protect will come out at trial (meaning he thinks there is likely to be a trial if there’s no settlement).

RR didn't write the documents. The motion addresses the reasons the book and podcast were included, including that Baldoni's complaint said anyone who knows him, would know about his book (in reference to the porn addiction). The lawyers cite caselaw which says that the full scope of documents referenced, incorporated, or integral to the complaint may be considered by the court. That was an own goal by Baldoni if he didn't want that stuff to come in. Of course Reynolds is going to double down - anyone accused of defamation is going to argue the statements were true and/or protected opinion, and then add on the actual malice argument since Baldoni is a public figure. Another argument they make is the statements by Reynolds may be past the statute of limitations which is only one year, but cannot be known yet because Baldoni has not pled with specificity when and where these statements were made. All in all, it's a much stronger document than I expected. They also discuss the DCUM favorite choice of law issue noting that as to Reynolds, he is a New York resident whose alleged acts took place in New York, and make a good case to apply NY law to the claims against him.

We’ll go round and round, as I’m convinced you’re on BL’s PR team.

DP. Stop infecting the thread with these ridiculous conspiracy theories. Cut it out. Enough.

It took PP three pages and multiple soliloquies to admit the book and pod statement violate the rules and were for PR b/c Reynolds is losing the PR battle. PP is infecting the thread with these long, repetitive cherry-picked posts. It’s exhausting.

You are assuming multiple posters are just one person.

I am the person who wrote that the book quotes probably do violate the rules and could be struck, but that Reynold's lawyers likely took a calculated risk to include them because it helps their PR.

But I'm not the poster you are replying to.

You need to wrap your head around the idea that the long posts digging into detailed analysis of the pleadings and legal strategy ARE the thread. It's not one person doing this, it's several. It's not killing the thread -- it's why most of us are here.

Dp, but agree the long posts are unnecessary. People could make their points much more succinctly. Most of the long posts get the law wrong anyway.

Not PP you are responding to. I like the long posts. I find them informative and I learn a lot from them. Some of the details give me info I was not aware of. They are in compliance with DCUM rules. What’s not in compliance are these personal attacks every 50 pages and the complaints about wild conspiracy theories about posters in thread instead of in Website feedback. That person should stop that, it’s ruining the thread.

+1, it's easy to skip a long post that doesn't add anything to the thread -- the long posts that are really useless tend to get ignored so it doesn't hurt anything.

It's harder to skip over page after page of people accusing other posters of being PR bots, calling people "nitwits" or making other personal attacks, responding to EVERY post they don't agree with (not just the super long ones, but concise posts as well) by telling people to get off the thread or that their opinion shouldn't be allowed on here (wtf, it's okay for there to be a diversity of opinions). That is what kills the thread.

[Anonymous]

OK, has anyone seen the coverage of Colleen Hoover and her Instagram post or stories? People are speculating she is mixing alcohol with medication and she seems really off.

An insta account called Dramatiktoq (obviously probably a TikTok account too though I’m not on TikTok) reposted from her account. She starts blathering on about how she’s got this great idea to freeze Diet Pepsi in ice cubes and then put it in her Diet Pepsi and she is kind of slurring and seems really out of it. Then she comes back on to say she’s going to be broke because her team is selling her merch for $10 apiece and she’s going to be in the hole by 5 PM. And maybe she should fire her entire team. Then urging people to buy her merch because she is going broke.

I have never seen Colleen Hoover before all this or followed any of her stories so maybe this is normal for her but the comments were off the rails. She definitely does not seem OK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, has anyone seen the coverage of Colleen Hoover and her Instagram post or stories? People are speculating she is mixing alcohol with medication and she seems really off.

An insta account called Dramatiktoq (obviously probably a TikTok account too though I’m not on TikTok) reposted from her account. She starts blathering on about how she’s got this great idea to freeze Diet Pepsi in ice cubes and then put it in her Diet Pepsi and she is kind of slurring and seems really out of it. Then she comes back on to say she’s going to be broke because her team is selling her merch for $10 apiece and she’s going to be in the hole by 5 PM. And maybe she should fire her entire team. Then urging people to buy her merch because she is going broke.

I have never seen Colleen Hoover before all this or followed any of her stories so maybe this is normal for her but the comments were off the rails. She definitely does not seem OK.

I have trouble believing she is hurting for money, as they just announced yet another film adaptation of one of her books (this would be the fourth, after IEWU, Verity which is now filming with Anne Hathaway and Dakota Johnson, and Regretting You which is set to begin filming soon). Unless she's really, really bad with money and/or has a serious gambling issue, she was probably just joking in that post about how her team was underselling her merch. More likely, they are gearing up for a bunch of new merchandise related to either another book release or one of the aforementioned films coming out, and did a huge sale to clear out the old stuff and her post was part of them trying to push sales to get rid of it.

I don't know about the Diet Pepsi thing. I only drink original Coke and don't mind when the ice melts and waters it down because I just figure that way I get more water, which is what I should be drinking instead of soda anyway. But I don't judge her, soda is such a hard habit to break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, has anyone seen the coverage of Colleen Hoover and her Instagram post or stories? People are speculating she is mixing alcohol with medication and she seems really off.

An insta account called Dramatiktoq (obviously probably a TikTok account too though I’m not on TikTok) reposted from her account. She starts blathering on about how she’s got this great idea to freeze Diet Pepsi in ice cubes and then put it in her Diet Pepsi and she is kind of slurring and seems really out of it. Then she comes back on to say she’s going to be broke because her team is selling her merch for $10 apiece and she’s going to be in the hole by 5 PM. And maybe she should fire her entire team. Then urging people to buy her merch because she is going broke.

I have never seen Colleen Hoover before all this or followed any of her stories so maybe this is normal for her but the comments were off the rails. She definitely does not seem OK.

I have trouble believing she is hurting for money, as they just announced yet another film adaptation of one of her books (this would be the fourth, after IEWU, Verity which is now filming with Anne Hathaway and Dakota Johnson, and Regretting You which is set to begin filming soon). Unless she's really, really bad with money and/or has a serious gambling issue, she was probably just joking in that post about how her team was underselling her merch. More likely, they are gearing up for a bunch of new merchandise related to either another book release or one of the aforementioned films coming out, and did a huge sale to clear out the old stuff and her post was part of them trying to push sales to get rid of it.

I don't know about the Diet Pepsi thing. I only drink original Coke and don't mind when the ice melts and waters it down because I just figure that way I get more water, which is what I should be drinking instead of soda anyway. But I don't judge her, soda is such a hard habit to break.

Just going to ignore the fact that she was obviously heavily medicated or drunk? Yeah I get posting about your Diet Pepsi quirks or joking about dropping prices on your merch, but this post was not at all normal. Something is off with this woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, has anyone seen the coverage of Colleen Hoover and her Instagram post or stories? People are speculating she is mixing alcohol with medication and she seems really off.

An insta account called Dramatiktoq (obviously probably a TikTok account too though I’m not on TikTok) reposted from her account. She starts blathering on about how she’s got this great idea to freeze Diet Pepsi in ice cubes and then put it in her Diet Pepsi and she is kind of slurring and seems really out of it. Then she comes back on to say she’s going to be broke because her team is selling her merch for $10 apiece and she’s going to be in the hole by 5 PM. And maybe she should fire her entire team. Then urging people to buy her merch because she is going broke.

I have never seen Colleen Hoover before all this or followed any of her stories so maybe this is normal for her but the comments were off the rails. She definitely does not seem OK.

I have trouble believing she is hurting for money, as they just announced yet another film adaptation of one of her books (this would be the fourth, after IEWU, Verity which is now filming with Anne Hathaway and Dakota Johnson, and Regretting You which is set to begin filming soon). Unless she's really, really bad with money and/or has a serious gambling issue, she was probably just joking in that post about how her team was underselling her merch. More likely, they are gearing up for a bunch of new merchandise related to either another book release or one of the aforementioned films coming out, and did a huge sale to clear out the old stuff and her post was part of them trying to push sales to get rid of it.

I don't know about the Diet Pepsi thing. I only drink original Coke and don't mind when the ice melts and waters it down because I just figure that way I get more water, which is what I should be drinking instead of soda anyway. But I don't judge her, soda is such a hard habit to break.

Just going to ignore the fact that she was obviously heavily medicated or drunk? Yeah I get posting about your Diet Pepsi quirks or joking about dropping prices on your merch, but this post was not at all normal. Something is off with this woman.

How do you know she is medicated or drunk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, has anyone seen the coverage of Colleen Hoover and her Instagram post or stories? People are speculating she is mixing alcohol with medication and she seems really off.

An insta account called Dramatiktoq (obviously probably a TikTok account too though I’m not on TikTok) reposted from her account. She starts blathering on about how she’s got this great idea to freeze Diet Pepsi in ice cubes and then put it in her Diet Pepsi and she is kind of slurring and seems really out of it. Then she comes back on to say she’s going to be broke because her team is selling her merch for $10 apiece and she’s going to be in the hole by 5 PM. And maybe she should fire her entire team. Then urging people to buy her merch because she is going broke.

I have never seen Colleen Hoover before all this or followed any of her stories so maybe this is normal for her but the comments were off the rails. She definitely does not seem OK.

I have trouble believing she is hurting for money, as they just announced yet another film adaptation of one of her books (this would be the fourth, after IEWU, Verity which is now filming with Anne Hathaway and Dakota Johnson, and Regretting You which is set to begin filming soon). Unless she's really, really bad with money and/or has a serious gambling issue, she was probably just joking in that post about how her team was underselling her merch. More likely, they are gearing up for a bunch of new merchandise related to either another book release or one of the aforementioned films coming out, and did a huge sale to clear out the old stuff and her post was part of them trying to push sales to get rid of it.

I don't know about the Diet Pepsi thing. I only drink original Coke and don't mind when the ice melts and waters it down because I just figure that way I get more water, which is what I should be drinking instead of soda anyway. But I don't judge her, soda is such a hard habit to break.

Just going to ignore the fact that she was obviously heavily medicated or drunk? Yeah I get posting about your Diet Pepsi quirks or joking about dropping prices on your merch, but this post was not at all normal. Something is off with this woman.

How do you know she is medicated or drunk?

Go watch the video and come back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, has anyone seen the coverage of Colleen Hoover and her Instagram post or stories? People are speculating she is mixing alcohol with medication and she seems really off.

An insta account called Dramatiktoq (obviously probably a TikTok account too though I’m not on TikTok) reposted from her account. She starts blathering on about how she’s got this great idea to freeze Diet Pepsi in ice cubes and then put it in her Diet Pepsi and she is kind of slurring and seems really out of it. Then she comes back on to say she’s going to be broke because her team is selling her merch for $10 apiece and she’s going to be in the hole by 5 PM. And maybe she should fire her entire team. Then urging people to buy her merch because she is going broke.

I have never seen Colleen Hoover before all this or followed any of her stories so maybe this is normal for her but the comments were off the rails. She definitely does not seem OK.

I have trouble believing she is hurting for money, as they just announced yet another film adaptation of one of her books (this would be the fourth, after IEWU, Verity which is now filming with Anne Hathaway and Dakota Johnson, and Regretting You which is set to begin filming soon). Unless she's really, really bad with money and/or has a serious gambling issue, she was probably just joking in that post about how her team was underselling her merch. More likely, they are gearing up for a bunch of new merchandise related to either another book release or one of the aforementioned films coming out, and did a huge sale to clear out the old stuff and her post was part of them trying to push sales to get rid of it.

I don't know about the Diet Pepsi thing. I only drink original Coke and don't mind when the ice melts and waters it down because I just figure that way I get more water, which is what I should be drinking instead of soda anyway. But I don't judge her, soda is such a hard habit to break.

Just going to ignore the fact that she was obviously heavily medicated or drunk? Yeah I get posting about your Diet Pepsi quirks or joking about dropping prices on your merch, but this post was not at all normal. Something is off with this woman.

PP here and I didn't go watch the videos. I'm lazy plus you didn't link them.

But I also don't think someone doing a post while drunk or high means something is seriously wrong with a person. If it was all the time, yeah I'd wonder if they had a drinking problem. But sometimes people have a few drinks and then make jokes about what if I made ice out of Diet Pepsi and put it in my Diet Pepsi, and it's not a problem. They just got tipsy and were funny for a bit and then went on with their normal life.

Hoover is clearly very successful and productive. It's hard to write that many books, and her books are hugely successful. And she built the whole thing herself -- didn't she self publish initially? That's impressive. That's more persuasive evidence of the kind of person she is than a couple social media posts where she seems tipsy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, has anyone seen the coverage of Colleen Hoover and her Instagram post or stories? People are speculating she is mixing alcohol with medication and she seems really off.

An insta account called Dramatiktoq (obviously probably a TikTok account too though I’m not on TikTok) reposted from her account. She starts blathering on about how she’s got this great idea to freeze Diet Pepsi in ice cubes and then put it in her Diet Pepsi and she is kind of slurring and seems really out of it. Then she comes back on to say she’s going to be broke because her team is selling her merch for $10 apiece and she’s going to be in the hole by 5 PM. And maybe she should fire her entire team. Then urging people to buy her merch because she is going broke.

I have never seen Colleen Hoover before all this or followed any of her stories so maybe this is normal for her but the comments were off the rails. She definitely does not seem OK.

I have trouble believing she is hurting for money, as they just announced yet another film adaptation of one of her books (this would be the fourth, after IEWU, Verity which is now filming with Anne Hathaway and Dakota Johnson, and Regretting You which is set to begin filming soon). Unless she's really, really bad with money and/or has a serious gambling issue, she was probably just joking in that post about how her team was underselling her merch. More likely, they are gearing up for a bunch of new merchandise related to either another book release or one of the aforementioned films coming out, and did a huge sale to clear out the old stuff and her post was part of them trying to push sales to get rid of it.

I don't know about the Diet Pepsi thing. I only drink original Coke and don't mind when the ice melts and waters it down because I just figure that way I get more water, which is what I should be drinking instead of soda anyway. But I don't judge her, soda is such a hard habit to break.

Just going to ignore the fact that she was obviously heavily medicated or drunk? Yeah I get posting about your Diet Pepsi quirks or joking about dropping prices on your merch, but this post was not at all normal. Something is off with this woman.

PP here and I didn't go watch the videos. I'm lazy plus you didn't link them.

But I also don't think someone doing a post while drunk or high means something is seriously wrong with a person. If it was all the time, yeah I'd wonder if they had a drinking problem. But sometimes people have a few drinks and then make jokes about what if I made ice out of Diet Pepsi and put it in my Diet Pepsi, and it's not a problem. They just got tipsy and were funny for a bit and then went on with their normal life.

Hoover is clearly very successful and productive. It's hard to write that many books, and her books are hugely successful. And she built the whole thing herself -- didn't she self publish initially? That's impressive. That's more persuasive evidence of the kind of person she is than a couple social media posts where she seems tipsy.

Several influencers have posted the video and the comments are not kind. I imagine she will take them down at some point today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, has anyone seen the coverage of Colleen Hoover and her Instagram post or stories? People are speculating she is mixing alcohol with medication and she seems really off.

An insta account called Dramatiktoq (obviously probably a TikTok account too though I’m not on TikTok) reposted from her account. She starts blathering on about how she’s got this great idea to freeze Diet Pepsi in ice cubes and then put it in her Diet Pepsi and she is kind of slurring and seems really out of it. Then she comes back on to say she’s going to be broke because her team is selling her merch for $10 apiece and she’s going to be in the hole by 5 PM. And maybe she should fire her entire team. Then urging people to buy her merch because she is going broke.

I have never seen Colleen Hoover before all this or followed any of her stories so maybe this is normal for her but the comments were off the rails. She definitely does not seem OK.

I have trouble believing she is hurting for money, as they just announced yet another film adaptation of one of her books (this would be the fourth, after IEWU, Verity which is now filming with Anne Hathaway and Dakota Johnson, and Regretting You which is set to begin filming soon). Unless she's really, really bad with money and/or has a serious gambling issue, she was probably just joking in that post about how her team was underselling her merch. More likely, they are gearing up for a bunch of new merchandise related to either another book release or one of the aforementioned films coming out, and did a huge sale to clear out the old stuff and her post was part of them trying to push sales to get rid of it.

I don't know about the Diet Pepsi thing. I only drink original Coke and don't mind when the ice melts and waters it down because I just figure that way I get more water, which is what I should be drinking instead of soda anyway. But I don't judge her, soda is such a hard habit to break.

Just going to ignore the fact that she was obviously heavily medicated or drunk? Yeah I get posting about your Diet Pepsi quirks or joking about dropping prices on your merch, but this post was not at all normal. Something is off with this woman.

PP here and I didn't go watch the videos. I'm lazy plus you didn't link them.

But I also don't think someone doing a post while drunk or high means something is seriously wrong with a person. If it was all the time, yeah I'd wonder if they had a drinking problem. But sometimes people have a few drinks and then make jokes about what if I made ice out of Diet Pepsi and put it in my Diet Pepsi, and it's not a problem. They just got tipsy and were funny for a bit and then went on with their normal life.

Hoover is clearly very successful and productive. It's hard to write that many books, and her books are hugely successful. And she built the whole thing herself -- didn't she self publish initially? That's impressive. That's more persuasive evidence of the kind of person she is than a couple social media posts where she seems tipsy.

Several influencers have posted the video and the comments are not kind. I imagine she will take them down at some point today.

Well that's kind of mean then. I'm so glad I don't rely on social media to help me do my job/make money. Who is she hurting? I can't imagine picking someone apart in this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, has anyone seen the coverage of Colleen Hoover and her Instagram post or stories? People are speculating she is mixing alcohol with medication and she seems really off.

An insta account called Dramatiktoq (obviously probably a TikTok account too though I’m not on TikTok) reposted from her account. She starts blathering on about how she’s got this great idea to freeze Diet Pepsi in ice cubes and then put it in her Diet Pepsi and she is kind of slurring and seems really out of it. Then she comes back on to say she’s going to be broke because her team is selling her merch for $10 apiece and she’s going to be in the hole by 5 PM. And maybe she should fire her entire team. Then urging people to buy her merch because she is going broke.

I have never seen Colleen Hoover before all this or followed any of her stories so maybe this is normal for her but the comments were off the rails. She definitely does not seem OK.

I have trouble believing she is hurting for money, as they just announced yet another film adaptation of one of her books (this would be the fourth, after IEWU, Verity which is now filming with Anne Hathaway and Dakota Johnson, and Regretting You which is set to begin filming soon). Unless she's really, really bad with money and/or has a serious gambling issue, she was probably just joking in that post about how her team was underselling her merch. More likely, they are gearing up for a bunch of new merchandise related to either another book release or one of the aforementioned films coming out, and did a huge sale to clear out the old stuff and her post was part of them trying to push sales to get rid of it.

I don't know about the Diet Pepsi thing. I only drink original Coke and don't mind when the ice melts and waters it down because I just figure that way I get more water, which is what I should be drinking instead of soda anyway. But I don't judge her, soda is such a hard habit to break.

Just going to ignore the fact that she was obviously heavily medicated or drunk? Yeah I get posting about your Diet Pepsi quirks or joking about dropping prices on your merch, but this post was not at all normal. Something is off with this woman.

PP here and I didn't go watch the videos. I'm lazy plus you didn't link them.

But I also don't think someone doing a post while drunk or high means something is seriously wrong with a person. If it was all the time, yeah I'd wonder if they had a drinking problem. But sometimes people have a few drinks and then make jokes about what if I made ice out of Diet Pepsi and put it in my Diet Pepsi, and it's not a problem. They just got tipsy and were funny for a bit and then went on with their normal life.

Hoover is clearly very successful and productive. It's hard to write that many books, and her books are hugely successful. And she built the whole thing herself -- didn't she self publish initially? That's impressive. That's more persuasive evidence of the kind of person she is than a couple social media posts where she seems tipsy.

Several influencers have posted the video and the comments are not kind. I imagine she will take them down at some point today.

Well that's kind of mean then. I'm so glad I don't rely on social media to help me do my job/make money. Who is she hurting? I can't imagine picking someone apart in this way.

Social media is not always kind. If you get on and post a video very drunk or high, to millions of people, yeah folks are going to talk. You can feel sad about it, but it kind of is what it is.

It does seem like a cry for help or for attention or something. I mean it’s not like she was getting on there and announcing a new book. She was literally saying she learned how to freeze Diet Pepsi cubes and that she may fire her staff. Super bizarre.