Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where Lily Bloom got her threads.

https://www.tiktok.com/@herrerashow/video/7253561197079874859

I wonder if this is bc her atty told the judge they'd be adding additional defendants and a lot of ppl suspected JW would be among them.

Oops I'm PP and replied to the wrong msg. I was talking about Jed's new lawsuit not the fashion sourcing.

I understood even though you replied to the wrong post, and I agree.

Wallace probably filed this lawsuit because he expects to be added to Lively's lawsuit in her amended complaint.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where Lily Bloom got her threads.

https://www.tiktok.com/@herrerashow/video/7253561197079874859

I wonder if this is bc her atty told the judge they'd be adding additional defendants and a lot of ppl suspected JW would be among them.

Oops I'm PP and replied to the wrong msg. I was talking about Jed's new lawsuit not the fashion sourcing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jed Wallace is now suing Blake:

https://www.tmz.com/2025/02/05/blake-lively-sued-crisis-pr-firm-justin-baldoni-legal-war/

And her attorney’s response is that wallace’s lawsuit is retaliation against lively? And that he will be “held accountable” in federal court even though they didn’t name him in their federal complaint? Doesn’t that all make her legal team look silly?

It's standard practice for an attorney to flatly deny allegations in a new lawsuit in broad terms. And I took the "held accountable" comment to mean the case would be thrown out or lose on summary judgment, not that they intended to countersue.

Whatever side you take in the Lively/Baldoni thing, I think it's weird to act like everyone involved in the side you don't like is an idiot. Lively's attorneys are experienced and highly qualified. They've been very successful in other cases (and have lost cases, as have Baldoni's attorneys).

I don't get what the point is in personalizing this like it's a game of capture the flag at camp. That's a run of the mill statement in response to litigation being filed.

Yikes. Who’s personalizing it? I think it’s weird to call everything “retaliation” when they’re trying to prove actual retaliation in their lawsuit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where Lily Bloom got her threads.

https://www.tiktok.com/@herrerashow/video/7253561197079874859

I wonder if this is bc her atty told the judge they'd be adding additional defendants and a lot of ppl suspected JW would be among them.

I don’t understand your point. That specific video by Magnolia Lane has been rightfully jeered for a long time. I think it’s repugnant that Lively has promoted that brand and it makes no narrative sense for those busted fugly clothes to be used for that character.

Anonymous wrote:Where Lily Bloom got her threads.

https://www.tiktok.com/@herrerashow/video/7253561197079874859

I wonder if this is bc her atty told the judge they'd be adding additional defendants and a lot of ppl suspected JW would be among them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jed Wallace is now suing Blake:

https://www.tmz.com/2025/02/05/blake-lively-sued-crisis-pr-firm-justin-baldoni-legal-war/

And her attorney’s response is that wallace’s lawsuit is retaliation against lively? And that he will be “held accountable” in federal court even though they didn’t name him in their federal complaint? Doesn’t that all make her legal team look silly?

It's standard practice for an attorney to flatly deny allegations in a new lawsuit in broad terms. And I took the "held accountable" comment to mean the case would be thrown out or lose on summary judgment, not that they intended to countersue.

Whatever side you take in the Lively/Baldoni thing, I think it's weird to act like everyone involved in the side you don't like is an idiot. Lively's attorneys are experienced and highly qualified. They've been very successful in other cases (and have lost cases, as have Baldoni's attorneys).

I don't get what the point is in personalizing this like it's a game of capture the flag at camp. That's a run of the mill statement in response to litigation being filed.

Cut the scolding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jed Wallace is now suing Blake:

https://www.tmz.com/2025/02/05/blake-lively-sued-crisis-pr-firm-justin-baldoni-legal-war/

And her attorney’s response is that wallace’s lawsuit is retaliation against lively? And that he will be “held accountable” in federal court even though they didn’t name him in their federal complaint? Doesn’t that all make her legal team look silly?

It's standard practice for an attorney to flatly deny allegations in a new lawsuit in broad terms. And I took the "held accountable" comment to mean the case would be thrown out or lose on summary judgment, not that they intended to countersue.

Whatever side you take in the Lively/Baldoni thing, I think it's weird to act like everyone involved in the side you don't like is an idiot. Lively's attorneys are experienced and highly qualified. They've been very successful in other cases (and have lost cases, as have Baldoni's attorneys).

I don't get what the point is in personalizing this like it's a game of capture the flag at camp. That's a run of the mill statement in response to litigation being filed.

Dp, I’m an attorney and believe that Lively’s attorneys are asshats. It’s clear that their client has already gotten them to do several things they shouldn’t have, and wouldn’t have if they had control over the case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jed Wallace is now suing Blake:

https://www.tmz.com/2025/02/05/blake-lively-sued-crisis-pr-firm-justin-baldoni-legal-war/

And her attorney’s response is that wallace’s lawsuit is retaliation against lively? And that he will be “held accountable” in federal court even though they didn’t name him in their federal complaint? Doesn’t that all make her legal team look silly?

It's standard practice for an attorney to flatly deny allegations in a new lawsuit in broad terms. And I took the "held accountable" comment to mean the case would be thrown out or lose on summary judgment, not that they intended to countersue.

Whatever side you take in the Lively/Baldoni thing, I think it's weird to act like everyone involved in the side you don't like is an idiot. Lively's attorneys are experienced and highly qualified. They've been very successful in other cases (and have lost cases, as have Baldoni's attorneys).

I don't get what the point is in personalizing this like it's a game of capture the flag at camp. That's a run of the mill statement in response to litigation being filed.

Anonymous wrote:Jed Wallace is now suing Blake:

https://www.tmz.com/2025/02/05/blake-lively-sued-crisis-pr-firm-justin-baldoni-legal-war/

And her attorney’s response is that wallace’s lawsuit is retaliation against lively? And that he will be “held accountable” in federal court even though they didn’t name him in their federal complaint? Doesn’t that all make her legal team look silly?

Anonymous wrote:Matt Belloni just did an interview with the DGA for his podcast The Town about a variety of topics and he asked about the Baldoni-Lively conflict. The DGA said they can’t speak to this particular situation but they did reinforce this idea that the director has a sacrosanct 10-week period to work on their film by him or herself and they take this very seriously. Matt said he expected there to be expert testimony from the DGA during this case and one of the DGA leaders said it would be inappropriate to comment lol.

DP but I just want to note this podcast is with Lesli Link Glatter and Russell Hollander, president and director, respectively, of the Directors Guild of America. In case that wasn't clear to people who might not know what "an interview with the DGA" means.

I would be surprised if "the DGA" itself went on record but I would expect expert testimony from directors or producers on those issues if it gets that far (though I personally would be surprised if it does).

Matt Belloni just did an interview with the DGA for his podcast The Town about a variety of topics and he asked about the Baldoni-Lively conflict. The DGA said they can’t speak to this particular situation but they did reinforce this idea that the director has a sacrosanct 10-week period to work on their film by him or herself and they take this very seriously. Matt said he expected there to be expert testimony from the DGA during this case and one of the DGA leaders said it would be inappropriate to comment lol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Yes. Wallace is known for his unmoral pr tactics.

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

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

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

The factual question will really be whether he did this PR stuff in retaliation for her SH claims (as she is arguing) or completely separately (as he says) to protect himself from the bad PR that was coming out of how she treated him during the movie press tour and PR. It will be pretty tough to untangle IMO.

I think it will be relatively easy to untangle.

PR activity to boost Baldoni's positive press, get him interviews, place positive stories about him, even seeding positive comments about him on social media using Jed Wallace/bots (as unsavory as that practice is IMO) -- not retaliation.

PR activity to attack Lively, place negative stories about her in the press, seed social media with negative comments and discussion of her whether via his PR firm or using Jed Wallace/bots -- maybe retaliation (depending on whether the underlying sexual harassment claims survive).

Lively has some other stuff in her complaint kind of arguing that Baldoni intentionally deviated from Sony's marketing strategy for the movie in order to look Lively look bad (by talking about DV and DV survivors while Lively was talking about "wear your florals"). I think that's much dicier and unlikely to go far unless the underlying SH claims are viewed as very strong.

So it really may come down to exactly what the stories were that they were planting or what the comments were that they were having Wallace seed online. If they were exclusively about Baldoni and how he's great, I don't think there's any retaliation claim. If they were about Lively, I think he has a problem.

That isn’t how it will work, not even remotely. He can still win if he placed negative stories about her if he can show it was in response to actions she took to hurt his reputation.

“Gordon Reynolds” was thanked by Lively in the end credits of IEWU. “Gordon Reynolds” was in the end credits as portraying “Nicepool,” the nasty, killed off character satirizing Baldoni in the Deadpool-Wolverine film. Lipstick Alley has a thread, started today on the celebrity gossip part of the board, showing screenshots of now-deleted Reels by the trainer who Baldoni went to regarding whether he’d be able to lift Lively without destroying his back muscles. The idiot trainer has been a friend of RR and BL for years, laughed at Baldoni being satirized, and tried to delete the stories he liked and laughed at in his social media being harshly critical of Baldoni.

Lively and Reynolds engaged in an extensive and expensive all-out reputational eviscerating of Baldoni across a theatrically released international blockbuster film that Baldoni had nothing to do with. They flooded social media and had friends repost stories cruelly critical of Baldoni, mocking him publicly, at the same time. This PR sht she claims is a projection of what she and her team are fully guilty of and which we can see and verify with shocking ease.

They pulled the pin out of a grenade and stuffed it up their own buttholes (Reynolds is the one obsessed with the perineum as we can see by the published texts, along with his wife’s gentle oral practices). If Wallace scores a hit off of them, it’s because they cleared the path for him in their absolute joint arrogance that they can treat anyone like trash and they have to take it in silence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Yes. Wallace is known for his unmoral pr tactics.

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

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

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

The factual question will really be whether he did this PR stuff in retaliation for her SH claims (as she is arguing) or completely separately (as he says) to protect himself from the bad PR that was coming out of how she treated him during the movie press tour and PR. It will be pretty tough to untangle IMO.

I think it will be relatively easy to untangle.

PR activity to boost Baldoni's positive press, get him interviews, place positive stories about him, even seeding positive comments about him on social media using Jed Wallace/bots (as unsavory as that practice is IMO) -- not retaliation.

PR activity to attack Lively, place negative stories about her in the press, seed social media with negative comments and discussion of her whether via his PR firm or using Jed Wallace/bots -- maybe retaliation (depending on whether the underlying sexual harassment claims survive).

Lively has some other stuff in her complaint kind of arguing that Baldoni intentionally deviated from Sony's marketing strategy for the movie in order to look Lively look bad (by talking about DV and DV survivors while Lively was talking about "wear your florals"). I think that's much dicier and unlikely to go far unless the underlying SH claims are viewed as very strong.

So it really may come down to exactly what the stories were that they were planting or what the comments were that they were having Wallace seed online. If they were exclusively about Baldoni and how he's great, I don't think there's any retaliation claim. If they were about Lively, I think he has a problem.

That isn’t how it will work, not even remotely. He can still win if he placed negative stories about her if he can show it was in response to actions she took to hurt his reputation.

Where Lily Bloom got her threads.

https://www.tiktok.com/@herrerashow/video/7253561197079874859

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Yes. Wallace is known for his unmoral pr tactics.

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

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

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

The factual question will really be whether he did this PR stuff in retaliation for her SH claims (as she is arguing) or completely separately (as he says) to protect himself from the bad PR that was coming out of how she treated him during the movie press tour and PR. It will be pretty tough to untangle IMO.

I think it will be relatively easy to untangle.

PR activity to boost Baldoni's positive press, get him interviews, place positive stories about him, even seeding positive comments about him on social media using Jed Wallace/bots (as unsavory as that practice is IMO) -- not retaliation.

PR activity to attack Lively, place negative stories about her in the press, seed social media with negative comments and discussion of her whether via his PR firm or using Jed Wallace/bots -- maybe retaliation (depending on whether the underlying sexual harassment claims survive).

Lively has some other stuff in her complaint kind of arguing that Baldoni intentionally deviated from Sony's marketing strategy for the movie in order to look Lively look bad (by talking about DV and DV survivors while Lively was talking about "wear your florals"). I think that's much dicier and unlikely to go far unless the underlying SH claims are viewed as very strong.

So it really may come down to exactly what the stories were that they were planting or what the comments were that they were having Wallace seed online. If they were exclusively about Baldoni and how he's great, I don't think there's any retaliation claim. If they were about Lively, I think he has a problem.