Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Thats what I was thinking. I am following Drake's federal case against UMG and the Initial Conference isn't until March. Blake/Justin's initial conference isn't until February 12. The fact the judge didn't wait until says a lot. They're already annoyed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What stories does the NYT run that are defamatory about rich people all the time? Curious

[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.

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.”

Defamation by implication and false light is what the law professor thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, not that often. Judges don’t like being reversed. Kick it to a jury and let them decide (or better yet, the party’s settle)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What stories does the NYT run that are defamatory about rich people all the time? Curious

well I don’t think the Baldoni story was defamatory, so. the point is the NYTimes pisses off powerful people all the time, yet the only defamation suit to go to trial that I know of (correct me if I am wrong) is Sarah Palin and that one is VERY different - not the least of which the NYTimes knows that the assertion was false. we’re not even anywhere close to that with Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, not that often. Judges don’t like being reversed. Kick it to a jury and let them decide (or better yet, the party’s settle)

um now I know you don’t know anything. NO judge wants to have a trial if they can avoid it. they are definitely ruling on summary judgment as they see fit, including to grant it, if only to get the parties to settle.

[Anonymous]

So what are the chances any of these suits go to trial and which ones?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what are the chances any of these suits go to trial and which ones?

Very low. Depp and Heard were both personality disordered characters. Baldoni, Lively and Reynolds are very messy but I think all have more ultimate shared interest in moving on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What stories does the NYT run that are defamatory about rich people all the time? Curious

well I don’t think the Baldoni story was defamatory, so. the point is the NYTimes pisses off powerful people all the time, yet the only defamation suit to go to trial that I know of (correct me if I am wrong) is Sarah Palin and that one is VERY different - not the least of which the NYTimes knows that the assertion was false. we’re not even anywhere close to that with Baldoni.

What NYT stories are false? Curious.

With Palin, I don’t recall the NYT saying the assertion was false. It was this vague connection being made in an op ed. Such a thin case but it’s been going on for years, and the judge was reversed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what are the chances any of these suits go to trial and which ones?

Very low. Depp and Heard were both personality disordered characters. Baldoni, Lively and Reynolds are very messy but I think all have more ultimate shared interest in moving on.

Totally. Personally I think Depp was abusive and his relentless pursuit of Heard in that case only proved that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, not that often. Judges don’t like being reversed. Kick it to a jury and let them decide (or better yet, the party’s settle)

um now I know you don’t know anything. NO judge wants to have a trial if they can avoid it. they are definitely ruling on summary judgment as they see fit, including to grant it, if only to get the parties to settle.

Judges don’t like trials, but they hate being reversed even more. This isn’t an open and shut case at all, as much as you want to say it is.

I suspect you’re a lawyer but definitely not a media lawyer. Or a ‘1A lawyer’ as you say ;)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a very confusingly worded post about a podcast episode (really?) that provides no links and no useful discussion, after the website thread was just closed down LESS THAN 24 HOURS AGO after a person who trolled around with anti-Lively posts said they regret nothing for trolling and insulting the anti-Baldoni side and would do it again.

LESS THAN 24 HOURS PEOPLE. I PROPOSE A LONGER BREAK FROM LIVELY/BALDONI THREADS so that people can remember what their normal lives are like. At least one week. A podcast episode or this email release is not a true development. Maybe people can't even deal with this subject reasonably at all. I don't understand why someone would feel the need to post this not-really-a-development thread after both the thread itself and the thread asking for closure of the thread were locked because people could not control themselves and act like human beings?

Omg get a grip. A number of us find this interesting from a legal perspective. I’d personally like to know more about how a “false light” claim is somehow easier to show than defamation.

These threads are the most interesting things that have been on DCUM in a while, due to the very high number of lawyers and journalists in this region who can weigh in on the actual case, and on the schadenfreude of seeing a mean girl face consequences.

I didnt care about Blake Lively or Ryan Reynolds or Justin Baldoni at all until like a week ago, and now this is my crack. Reddit is pretty good for a fix, but let's keep it rolling here.

Can you let me know what Reddit subs you’re reading on this? This is my crack too!

Here is one!

https://www.reddit.com/r/popculture/s/9q83kkwVBa

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What stories does the NYT run that are defamatory about rich people all the time? Curious

well I don’t think the Baldoni story was defamatory, so. the point is the NYTimes pisses off powerful people all the time, yet the only defamation suit to go to trial that I know of (correct me if I am wrong) is Sarah Palin and that one is VERY different - not the least of which the NYTimes knows that the assertion was false. we’re not even anywhere close to that with Baldoni.

What NYT stories are false? Curious.

With Palin, I don’t recall the NYT saying the assertion was false. It was this vague connection being made in an op ed. Such a thin case but it’s been going on for years, and the judge was reversed

Well and she initially lost at trial. If Rakoff hadn’t gone off the rails the case would have been over by now and she would have lost. But in any event her evidence was much stronger. The Op-Ed claimed there was a direct connection between Gabbh Gifford’s shooting with a Palin campaign ad, which there factually was not. they immediately retracted it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, not that often. Judges don’t like being reversed. Kick it to a jury and let them decide (or better yet, the party’s settle)

um now I know you don’t know anything. NO judge wants to have a trial if they can avoid it. they are definitely ruling on summary judgment as they see fit, including to grant it, if only to get the parties to settle.

Judges don’t like trials, but they hate being reversed even more. This isn’t an open and shut case at all, as much as you want to say it is.

I suspect you’re a lawyer but definitely not a media lawyer. Or a ‘1A lawyer’ as you say ;)

It’s not open and shut but the assertion that a judge is going to be scared to rule against summary judgment is just dumb dumb dumb. did you even read the Baldoni complaint?

[Anonymous]

Listening to that I can understand why he came off creepy, though I'm not at all persuaded by the sexual harassment case anymore.