Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You also have to remember lively was having a bit of a bad run marketing Betty buzz b/c she had also made fun of Kate Middleton while promoting the brand

And yet that, which is more recent and involving a much bigger celebrity than Flaa, didn't make much of a dent. I'd certainly never heard about it but I did hear about the little bump video even though I don't generally follow celebrity news. To me that screams inorganic, especially if there are texts where they flag that for Jed and the big spike in views occurs immediately thereafter. I don't know if that's going to be enough causation for the jury. It's complicated by the fact that all the stuff they were "boosting" appears to have been truthful material, so at that point is the negative sentiment because the behavior was bad or because it was boosted, and to what extent did the boosting cause damages, etc. It's hard to quantify so it will be hard for her to get damages, but for me this example actually reinforces that this stuff was pumped out by Wayfarer around the premiere.

No. Do you not understand that she immediately apologized for the Kate Middleton issue? Apologies go a long way. That’s been people’s biggest complaints, including the Sony executives. If she would just apologize, to the journalists, to the colleen Hoover fans she turned off by her marketing decisions, a lot of this would’ve gone away, but she just keeps on going.

It is her actions that are causing the public to rehash mishaps from two years ago.

I truly doubt an apology would have mattered but YMMV.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You also have to remember lively was having a bit of a bad run marketing Betty buzz b/c she had also made fun of Kate Middleton while promoting the brand

And yet that, which is more recent and involving a much bigger celebrity than Flaa, didn't make much of a dent. I'd certainly never heard about it but I did hear about the little bump video even though I don't generally follow celebrity news. To me that screams inorganic, especially if there are texts where they flag that for Jed and the big spike in views occurs immediately thereafter. I don't know if that's going to be enough causation for the jury. It's complicated by the fact that all the stuff they were "boosting" appears to have been truthful material, so at that point is the negative sentiment because the behavior was bad or because it was boosted, and to what extent did the boosting cause damages, etc. It's hard to quantify so it will be hard for her to get damages, but for me this example actually reinforces that this stuff was pumped out by Wayfarer around the premiere.

No. Do you not understand that she immediately apologized for the Kate Middleton issue? Apologies go a long way. That’s been people’s biggest complaints, including the Sony executives. If she would just apologize, to the journalists, to the colleen Hoover fans she turned off by her marketing decisions, a lot of this would’ve gone away, but she just keeps on going.

It is her actions that are causing the public to rehash mishaps from two years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

You also have to remember lively was having a bit of a bad run marketing Betty buzz b/c she had also made fun of Kate Middleton while promoting the brand

And yet that, which is more recent and involving a much bigger celebrity than Flaa, didn't make much of a dent. I'd certainly never heard about it but I did hear about the little bump video even though I don't generally follow celebrity news. To me that screams inorganic, especially if there are texts where they flag that for Jed and the big spike in views occurs immediately thereafter. I don't know if that's going to be enough causation for the jury. It's complicated by the fact that all the stuff they were "boosting" appears to have been truthful material, so at that point is the negative sentiment because the behavior was bad or because it was boosted, and to what extent did the boosting cause damages, etc. It's hard to quantify so it will be hard for her to get damages, but for me this example actually reinforces that this stuff was pumped out by Wayfarer around the premiere.

You also have to remember lively was having a bit of a bad run marketing Betty buzz b/c she had also made fun of Kate Middleton while promoting the brand

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t seem like there is going to be a big winner or loser at the end if this trial.

Her reputation can’t be salvaged at this point. The only thing that might help is time and in a few years, maybe this will blow over but for the foreseeable future studios or consumers don’t care if it was WF or her, they just know that they don’t want much to do with her.

I’ve seen a lot of the documents, her team is arguing that her businesses tanked has and studios won’t talk to her. I’m just not sure what a win will look like for her. Once the sexual harassment claims were tossed it just made her look like she made stuff up and lied. That ruined her reputation likely more than anything she did during the promotion of this film or anything WF might’ve done.

Regarding the bolded, I get why people who don't understand the legal rulings might think this because of the online conversation, but if you understand the ruling, that's not at all what it says. Not even a little. In fact the opposite -- the court found that it was reasonable for Lively to believe she'd been SHed based on the facts of the case, and in no place did the court find she had made anything up or lied.

If you think the general public or businesses that are thinking of disturbing her products are reading this nuance, you are sorely mistaken. The headlines are that this is a big loss and sexual harassment claims were thrown out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t seem like there is going to be a big winner or loser at the end if this trial.

Her reputation can’t be salvaged at this point. The only thing that might help is time and in a few years, maybe this will blow over but for the foreseeable future studios or consumers don’t care if it was WF or her, they just know that they don’t want much to do with her.

I’ve seen a lot of the documents, her team is arguing that her businesses tanked has and studios won’t talk to her. I’m just not sure what a win will look like for her. Once the sexual harassment claims were tossed it just made her look like she made stuff up and lied. That ruined her reputation likely more than anything she did during the promotion of this film or anything WF might’ve done.

Regarding the bolded, I get why people who don't understand the legal rulings might think this because of the online conversation, but if you understand the ruling, that's not at all what it says. Not even a little. In fact the opposite -- the court found that it was reasonable for Lively to believe she'd been SHed based on the facts of the case, and in no place did the court find she had made anything up or lied.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t seem like there is going to be a big winner or loser at the end if this trial.

Her reputation can’t be salvaged at this point. The only thing that might help is time and in a few years, maybe this will blow over but for the foreseeable future studios or consumers don’t care if it was WF or her, they just know that they don’t want much to do with her.

I’ve seen a lot of the documents, her team is arguing that her businesses tanked has and studios won’t talk to her. I’m just not sure what a win will look like for her. Once the sexual harassment claims were tossed it just made her look like she made stuff up and lied. That ruined her reputation likely more than anything she did during the promotion of this film or anything WF might’ve done.

Regarding the bolded, I get why people who don't understand the legal rulings might think this because of the online conversation, but if you understand the ruling, that's not at all what it says. Not even a little. In fact the opposite -- the court found that it was reasonable for Lively to believe she'd been SHed based on the facts of the case, and in no place did the court find she had made anything up or lied.

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t seem like there is going to be a big winner or loser at the end if this trial.

Her reputation can’t be salvaged at this point. The only thing that might help is time and in a few years, maybe this will blow over but for the foreseeable future studios or consumers don’t care if it was WF or her, they just know that they don’t want much to do with her.

I’ve seen a lot of the documents, her team is arguing that her businesses tanked has and studios won’t talk to her. I’m just not sure what a win will look like for her. Once the sexual harassment claims were tossed it just made her look like she made stuff up and lied. That ruined her reputation likely more than anything she did during the promotion of this film or anything WF might’ve done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting is that there are three documents on the docket that distributors of Blakes drink products wrote to the company and expressed their concern and possibly halting distributing the products. One was Kroger’s and I think another was maybe a cruise line and I forget the third.

Basically, they said they were very nervous about the backlash against Blake, and they were wary to keep purchasing the product. Now you could argue that this was because of the retaliation campaign, but some of the things that they cited ate hard to blame on Wayfarer, for example one of them cited that they did not like that she was promoting her booze line during the domestic violence themed movie. That was not Wayfarer- that was all Blake and she could’ve apologized that and didn’t.

They also didn’t like the baby bump interview, which again the journalist will testify that that was not Wayfarer. Either way it’s Blake’s words and what would’ve been responsible for her to do is apologize and nip that in the bud rather than letting it fester.


Instead, she took no accountability, and in December the New York Times article was published. Which may have been the end of it, except no one was counting on WF releasing all of that information that turned the public - not to rehash this old thread, but the dance video, text messages, the PGA letter showing that she was in charge of much of the decisions, and things like people disagreeing the birth video was offensive or inappropriate.

If there was a smear campaign and I still really marvel that these people had the ability to tank what she is saying was $150 million brand in about a week time, she did not do the cleanup necessary that her distributors were asking her to do.

If they have evidence showing Wafarer, via TAG and Wallace, promoted and encouraged the stories about the baby bump interview or Blake placing her products at the premiere party, then it's not "all Blake." The baby bump interview was old and went insanely viral right around the time of the premiere. Likewise, the stories about Blake promoting products at the premiere saw huge uptake in the days around the premiere, after Wayfarer hired TAG/Wallace. Blake will argue at trial that the impact on her brands was not "all Blake" but pushed and promoted by the people Wayfarer hired to "bury" her. This is the whole case.

Yes, the defense is "it was organic." But this is complicated by text and email evidence showing TAG and Wallace assuring Wayfarer that it would all "look organic."

A lot of this will come down to what experts are permitted to testify and about what, what expert reports are admitted into evidence. Blake's experts argue in favor of her narrative, Wayfarer's experts argue the other side. It is not that uncommon in a case like this, that concerns allegations of lost profits, for it to become a battle of the experts. That can make it a wildcard because you truly do not know what a jury of laypeople will do with that. We also don't know what the judge will decide regarding the experts -- I believe next week there is a hearing where the experts will testify and be subject to direct and cross examination, a sort of mini trial before the trial that will enable Liman to decide what is admissible or not. His decision is going to dictate the arguments each side can make in court to a great degree. We'll just have to wait and see.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funniest part of yesterday’s hearing was Blake trying to seal the birthing video, and WF saying no need. It obviously looks nothing like porn and she’s afraid her lying self will be further exposed.

That is funny. I think at some point Blake tried to make it sound like some gross privacy violation of the mom's that she was faux outraged over when it is clear these are the crunchy types who hit my Instagram algorithm with their home water births. Not at all surprised they were like, "nah. Show it to anyone who wants to see see it." I think Blake has a pretty warped sexuality, personally. She jumps between pushing boundaries that would make a lot of people uncomfortable and are pretty crass to being a scandalized 18th century nun real quick.

It’s my understanding that she was not concerned about Jamie Heath‘s wife’s privacy at all. She accused him of trying to show her p-rn. And it is very clear from the video that no one seeing any second of it would think it was p-rn. It’s very clearly just a water birth, and like some of us have predicted there are no shots of V because everything is happening in the water and there is not a camera underwater.

Before my first baby was born, I did all the hospital classes and some of the moms and I giving birth around the same time became friends and exchanged emails. Some of them were pretty crunchy and shared a lot of their birth stories and videos and photos of them full right after the birth with boobs hanging out every where as they did chest to chest. it was fine, but it was clearly a birth story and not anything sexual. A lot of us have seen or experienced that ourselves and so there’s no one in the jury that’s going to be fooled by her thinking it was anything sexual.

I don't agree with this. I would be very pissed if a coworker tried to show me a video of his wife's water birth. I don't want to look at that and I shouldn't be forced to without being explicitly told what it is in advance. I don't care if you can see actual genitalia or not -- it's too personal and there's still nudity involved.

I think some juror might feel the way I do. I know, for instance, my husband feels the same, as do my two closest friends and their husbands. Were more reserved people and find it really obnoxious and inappropriate when people over share like that.

Lively doesn't have to prove it's porn, everyone knows it's not at this point. She only has to show that incidents like this led her to believe she was being harassed. That's it. So there's no reason to show the video (totally unnecessary and if I was a juror, I'd be like why tf am I having to watch this?). She only has to present evidence that she was shown the video, objected to it, and later complained about the incident. The content if the video no longer matters because the SH claims are dismissed.

I would be pissed too. What I wouldn’t do is run to the New York Times and get involved in a two-year lawsuit that cost me $50 million and tanks my reputation in the industry, and you wouldn’t either.

Anyone pretending lively is not absolutely insane at this point is just not paying attention or being deliberately obtuse.

Justin and Jamie sound difficult to work with, but it was absolutely not worth all of this. At this point, people are just doubling down.

I mean, that's not what happened. She complained multiple times about a bunch of behavior, most of which I think is pretty bad. And then they hired Johnny Depp's crisis team who took down Amber Heard and The Shadiest Man In The World, Jed Wallace, to sway public opinion against Lively right as their movie opened. And Lively became aware of text messages saying exactly that via Taylor Swift's publicist friend, thanks to Jen Abel's hamfisted effort to steal clients and files from her employer (NOT because Lively was in some secret cabal with Stephanie Jones). Based on all that, it doesn't strike me as weird or "insane" that she chose to file a lawsuit and then discussed her lawsuit with the NYT.

And now multiple women, including other actresses on this film, a director who worked with Wayfarer previously, a producer Justin hired for the film, and Justin's own co-host from his podcast, have either come forward with their own complaints about Justin or backed Lively. Why is it insane for Lively to pursue this case? I agree it's ultimately harmed her rep but I also think that's unfair and has a lot to do with Bryan Freedman's "trial by misleading publicity" campaign. I think Freedman is the devil incarnate at this point and really question why he was hired if Wayfarer is so innocent. His whole strategy has been to perpetuate the smear campaign Wayfarer started in August 2024 in the hopes he can humiliate Lively into settling ir dropping the case. Seems bad?

I would never have pursued this lawsuit, but that's because I'm a lawyer and I know this is what often happens in litigation. My experience as a litigator has turned me into the kind of person who suggest mediation or just lets even really awful things go because I don't want to pay lawyers thousands of dollars so I can be abused and investigated by the person who harmed me. Because I've seen it up close and it sucks.

But maybe by pursuing this case, Lively can make a difference not only for herself but for other victims of publicity smear campaigns. I really think she's seeking justice for everyone who just gets trashed online by aholes like Melissa Nathan and Jed Wallace, and makes it harder for the bottom dwellers who do that work, and the sketchy unaccountable deep pockets who pay for it, to think twice before they decide "her we have a personnel dispute with this woman who makes a living off her name and celebrity, less bury her in online $hit until she has nothing left, cool?"

I see Lively as a villain. She was called a bully for her Kate Middleton posts and she apologized b/c Kate is A list. Lively could’ve minimized some of the fallout around the premiere had she apologized to the “little bump” journalist, just like Anne Hathaway did, and just like Sony said she should. But she didn’t b/c she’s elitist and chose to play the victim instead. She comes off as a horrible person.

None of this is relevant to the case except insofar as your opinion of her as "a villain" is driven by a PR campaign designed to get you to that conclusion. Lively is not on trial for failing to apologize for the little bump journalist (who also comes off as a horrible person! why should she apologize to someone who seems crazy, opportunistic, and like a jerk?). She is not on trial for "bullying" Kate Middleton (if she was, she'd win, because making a joke about a bad photoshop is not bullying). She's not on trial at all, Wayfarer is, for an alleged retaliatory campaign against Lively.

Your personal opinion of her as a person is irrelevant (again, except insofar as it was shaped by the alleged retaliatory campaign, a question none of us can really answer for sure and will likely come down to how the jury weights the testimony of various experts as well as which experts are allowed to testify and as to what).

That’s not actually true. When you claim damages, one of the questions legally is did you do anything to minimize those damages. Sony said she should apologize. Heath put in writing that she should talk more about DV. Kroger said they were waiting to see what she was going to do to assuage concerns of her audience (they were a vendor of her liquor brand). So no, I don’t like Lively. I think she’s a racist among many other things. And still her failure to do anything to repair the bad PR will absolutely come in at trial. The plaintiff has that burden.

Yes, that will be part of the equation. But that's for the damages award, not for the juries decision on the merits of the case. Again, Lively is not on trial and the trial will not be about whether Lively is a good person or not. I have not agreed with every decision Liman has made, but one thing I will say is that it's clear he is tightly controlling this case. He is working very hard to ensure that the arguments placed before the jury are directly relevant to the questions the jury will answering, and nothing more. Both sides have already been greatly limited in what they can argue/discuss in court, and I suspect that will continue with the motions in limine, decisions on the experts, jury instructions, etc. This will not be some freewheeling opportunity to turn the trial into the sort of hit jobs Wayfarer has successfully sewn on Reddit and in the tabloid media.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funniest part of yesterday’s hearing was Blake trying to seal the birthing video, and WF saying no need. It obviously looks nothing like porn and she’s afraid her lying self will be further exposed.

That is funny. I think at some point Blake tried to make it sound like some gross privacy violation of the mom's that she was faux outraged over when it is clear these are the crunchy types who hit my Instagram algorithm with their home water births. Not at all surprised they were like, "nah. Show it to anyone who wants to see see it." I think Blake has a pretty warped sexuality, personally. She jumps between pushing boundaries that would make a lot of people uncomfortable and are pretty crass to being a scandalized 18th century nun real quick.

It’s my understanding that she was not concerned about Jamie Heath‘s wife’s privacy at all. She accused him of trying to show her p-rn. And it is very clear from the video that no one seeing any second of it would think it was p-rn. It’s very clearly just a water birth, and like some of us have predicted there are no shots of V because everything is happening in the water and there is not a camera underwater.

Before my first baby was born, I did all the hospital classes and some of the moms and I giving birth around the same time became friends and exchanged emails. Some of them were pretty crunchy and shared a lot of their birth stories and videos and photos of them full right after the birth with boobs hanging out every where as they did chest to chest. it was fine, but it was clearly a birth story and not anything sexual. A lot of us have seen or experienced that ourselves and so there’s no one in the jury that’s going to be fooled by her thinking it was anything sexual.

I don't agree with this. I would be very pissed if a coworker tried to show me a video of his wife's water birth. I don't want to look at that and I shouldn't be forced to without being explicitly told what it is in advance. I don't care if you can see actual genitalia or not -- it's too personal and there's still nudity involved.

I think some juror might feel the way I do. I know, for instance, my husband feels the same, as do my two closest friends and their husbands. Were more reserved people and find it really obnoxious and inappropriate when people over share like that.

Lively doesn't have to prove it's porn, everyone knows it's not at this point. She only has to show that incidents like this led her to believe she was being harassed. That's it. So there's no reason to show the video (totally unnecessary and if I was a juror, I'd be like why tf am I having to watch this?). She only has to present evidence that she was shown the video, objected to it, and later complained about the incident. The content if the video no longer matters because the SH claims are dismissed.

I would be pissed too. What I wouldn’t do is run to the New York Times and get involved in a two-year lawsuit that cost me $50 million and tanks my reputation in the industry, and you wouldn’t either.

Anyone pretending lively is not absolutely insane at this point is just not paying attention or being deliberately obtuse.

Justin and Jamie sound difficult to work with, but it was absolutely not worth all of this. At this point, people are just doubling down.

I mean, that's not what happened. She complained multiple times about a bunch of behavior, most of which I think is pretty bad. And then they hired Johnny Depp's crisis team who took down Amber Heard and The Shadiest Man In The World, Jed Wallace, to sway public opinion against Lively right as their movie opened. And Lively became aware of text messages saying exactly that via Taylor Swift's publicist friend, thanks to Jen Abel's hamfisted effort to steal clients and files from her employer (NOT because Lively was in some secret cabal with Stephanie Jones). Based on all that, it doesn't strike me as weird or "insane" that she chose to file a lawsuit and then discussed her lawsuit with the NYT.

And now multiple women, including other actresses on this film, a director who worked with Wayfarer previously, a producer Justin hired for the film, and Justin's own co-host from his podcast, have either come forward with their own complaints about Justin or backed Lively. Why is it insane for Lively to pursue this case? I agree it's ultimately harmed her rep but I also think that's unfair and has a lot to do with Bryan Freedman's "trial by misleading publicity" campaign. I think Freedman is the devil incarnate at this point and really question why he was hired if Wayfarer is so innocent. His whole strategy has been to perpetuate the smear campaign Wayfarer started in August 2024 in the hopes he can humiliate Lively into settling ir dropping the case. Seems bad?

I would never have pursued this lawsuit, but that's because I'm a lawyer and I know this is what often happens in litigation. My experience as a litigator has turned me into the kind of person who suggest mediation or just lets even really awful things go because I don't want to pay lawyers thousands of dollars so I can be abused and investigated by the person who harmed me. Because I've seen it up close and it sucks.

But maybe by pursuing this case, Lively can make a difference not only for herself but for other victims of publicity smear campaigns. I really think she's seeking justice for everyone who just gets trashed online by aholes like Melissa Nathan and Jed Wallace, and makes it harder for the bottom dwellers who do that work, and the sketchy unaccountable deep pockets who pay for it, to think twice before they decide "her we have a personnel dispute with this woman who makes a living off her name and celebrity, less bury her in online $hit until she has nothing left, cool?"

I see Lively as a villain. She was called a bully for her Kate Middleton posts and she apologized b/c Kate is A list. Lively could’ve minimized some of the fallout around the premiere had she apologized to the “little bump” journalist, just like Anne Hathaway did, and just like Sony said she should. But she didn’t b/c she’s elitist and chose to play the victim instead. She comes off as a horrible person.

None of this is relevant to the case except insofar as your opinion of her as "a villain" is driven by a PR campaign designed to get you to that conclusion. Lively is not on trial for failing to apologize for the little bump journalist (who also comes off as a horrible person! why should she apologize to someone who seems crazy, opportunistic, and like a jerk?). She is not on trial for "bullying" Kate Middleton (if she was, she'd win, because making a joke about a bad photoshop is not bullying). She's not on trial at all, Wayfarer is, for an alleged retaliatory campaign against Lively.

Your personal opinion of her as a person is irrelevant (again, except insofar as it was shaped by the alleged retaliatory campaign, a question none of us can really answer for sure and will likely come down to how the jury weights the testimony of various experts as well as which experts are allowed to testify and as to what).

That’s not actually true. When you claim damages, one of the questions legally is did you do anything to minimize those damages. Sony said she should apologize. Heath put in writing that she should talk more about DV. Kroger said they were waiting to see what she was going to do to assuage concerns of her audience (they were a vendor of her liquor brand). So no, I don’t like Lively. I think she’s a racist among many other things. And still her failure to do anything to repair the bad PR will absolutely come in at trial. The plaintiff has that burden.

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting is that there are three documents on the docket that distributors of Blakes drink products wrote to the company and expressed their concern and possibly halting distributing the products. One was Kroger’s and I think another was maybe a cruise line and I forget the third.

Basically, they said they were very nervous about the backlash against Blake, and they were wary to keep purchasing the product. Now you could argue that this was because of the retaliation campaign, but some of the things that they cited ate hard to blame on Wayfarer, for example one of them cited that they did not like that she was promoting her booze line during the domestic violence themed movie. That was not Wayfarer- that was all Blake and she could’ve apologized that and didn’t.

They also didn’t like the baby bump interview, which again the journalist will testify that that was not Wayfarer. Either way it’s Blake’s words and what would’ve been responsible for her to do is apologize and nip that in the bud rather than letting it fester.


Instead, she took no accountability, and in December the New York Times article was published. Which may have been the end of it, except no one was counting on WF releasing all of that information that turned the public - not to rehash this old thread, but the dance video, text messages, the PGA letter showing that she was in charge of much of the decisions, and things like people disagreeing the birth video was offensive or inappropriate.

If there was a smear campaign and I still really marvel that these people had the ability to tank what she is saying was $150 million brand in about a week time, she did not do the cleanup necessary that her distributors were asking her to do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funniest part of yesterday’s hearing was Blake trying to seal the birthing video, and WF saying no need. It obviously looks nothing like porn and she’s afraid her lying self will be further exposed.

That is funny. I think at some point Blake tried to make it sound like some gross privacy violation of the mom's that she was faux outraged over when it is clear these are the crunchy types who hit my Instagram algorithm with their home water births. Not at all surprised they were like, "nah. Show it to anyone who wants to see see it." I think Blake has a pretty warped sexuality, personally. She jumps between pushing boundaries that would make a lot of people uncomfortable and are pretty crass to being a scandalized 18th century nun real quick.

It’s my understanding that she was not concerned about Jamie Heath‘s wife’s privacy at all. She accused him of trying to show her p-rn. And it is very clear from the video that no one seeing any second of it would think it was p-rn. It’s very clearly just a water birth, and like some of us have predicted there are no shots of V because everything is happening in the water and there is not a camera underwater.

Before my first baby was born, I did all the hospital classes and some of the moms and I giving birth around the same time became friends and exchanged emails. Some of them were pretty crunchy and shared a lot of their birth stories and videos and photos of them full right after the birth with boobs hanging out every where as they did chest to chest. it was fine, but it was clearly a birth story and not anything sexual. A lot of us have seen or experienced that ourselves and so there’s no one in the jury that’s going to be fooled by her thinking it was anything sexual.

I don't agree with this. I would be very pissed if a coworker tried to show me a video of his wife's water birth. I don't want to look at that and I shouldn't be forced to without being explicitly told what it is in advance. I don't care if you can see actual genitalia or not -- it's too personal and there's still nudity involved.

I think some juror might feel the way I do. I know, for instance, my husband feels the same, as do my two closest friends and their husbands. Were more reserved people and find it really obnoxious and inappropriate when people over share like that.

Lively doesn't have to prove it's porn, everyone knows it's not at this point. She only has to show that incidents like this led her to believe she was being harassed. That's it. So there's no reason to show the video (totally unnecessary and if I was a juror, I'd be like why tf am I having to watch this?). She only has to present evidence that she was shown the video, objected to it, and later complained about the incident. The content if the video no longer matters because the SH claims are dismissed.

I would be pissed too. What I wouldn’t do is run to the New York Times and get involved in a two-year lawsuit that cost me $50 million and tanks my reputation in the industry, and you wouldn’t either.

Anyone pretending lively is not absolutely insane at this point is just not paying attention or being deliberately obtuse.

Justin and Jamie sound difficult to work with, but it was absolutely not worth all of this. At this point, people are just doubling down.

I mean, that's not what happened. She complained multiple times about a bunch of behavior, most of which I think is pretty bad. And then they hired Johnny Depp's crisis team who took down Amber Heard and The Shadiest Man In The World, Jed Wallace, to sway public opinion against Lively right as their movie opened. And Lively became aware of text messages saying exactly that via Taylor Swift's publicist friend, thanks to Jen Abel's hamfisted effort to steal clients and files from her employer (NOT because Lively was in some secret cabal with Stephanie Jones). Based on all that, it doesn't strike me as weird or "insane" that she chose to file a lawsuit and then discussed her lawsuit with the NYT.

And now multiple women, including other actresses on this film, a director who worked with Wayfarer previously, a producer Justin hired for the film, and Justin's own co-host from his podcast, have either come forward with their own complaints about Justin or backed Lively. Why is it insane for Lively to pursue this case? I agree it's ultimately harmed her rep but I also think that's unfair and has a lot to do with Bryan Freedman's "trial by misleading publicity" campaign. I think Freedman is the devil incarnate at this point and really question why he was hired if Wayfarer is so innocent. His whole strategy has been to perpetuate the smear campaign Wayfarer started in August 2024 in the hopes he can humiliate Lively into settling ir dropping the case. Seems bad?

I would never have pursued this lawsuit, but that's because I'm a lawyer and I know this is what often happens in litigation. My experience as a litigator has turned me into the kind of person who suggest mediation or just lets even really awful things go because I don't want to pay lawyers thousands of dollars so I can be abused and investigated by the person who harmed me. Because I've seen it up close and it sucks.

But maybe by pursuing this case, Lively can make a difference not only for herself but for other victims of publicity smear campaigns. I really think she's seeking justice for everyone who just gets trashed online by aholes like Melissa Nathan and Jed Wallace, and makes it harder for the bottom dwellers who do that work, and the sketchy unaccountable deep pockets who pay for it, to think twice before they decide "her we have a personnel dispute with this woman who makes a living off her name and celebrity, less bury her in online $hit until she has nothing left, cool?"

I see Lively as a villain. She was called a bully for her Kate Middleton posts and she apologized b/c Kate is A list. Lively could’ve minimized some of the fallout around the premiere had she apologized to the “little bump” journalist, just like Anne Hathaway did, and just like Sony said she should. But she didn’t b/c she’s elitist and chose to play the victim instead. She comes off as a horrible person.

None of this is relevant to the case except insofar as your opinion of her as "a villain" is driven by a PR campaign designed to get you to that conclusion. Lively is not on trial for failing to apologize for the little bump journalist (who also comes off as a horrible person! why should she apologize to someone who seems crazy, opportunistic, and like a jerk?). She is not on trial for "bullying" Kate Middleton (if she was, she'd win, because making a joke about a bad photoshop is not bullying). She's not on trial at all, Wayfarer is, for an alleged retaliatory campaign against Lively.

Your personal opinion of her as a person is irrelevant (again, except insofar as it was shaped by the alleged retaliatory campaign, a question none of us can really answer for sure and will likely come down to how the jury weights the testimony of various experts as well as which experts are allowed to testify and as to what).