Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni Feud: ‘A Pure PR Play’ With Real Legal Stakes

by

In a scene from the filming of “It Ends With Us,” actors Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively converse amicably over the best approach to depict their characters’ blossoming romance. Is a passionate kiss necessary, or would a heartfelt conversation evoke a more profound sense of love?

He smiles. She laughs. Yet, they were growing to despise each other.

She believed Baldoni, her co-star, director, and studio head, was crossing professional lines; he felt she struggled to follow his guidance. A seemingly minor incident from May 2023, which could have been chalked up as “creative differences” in different circumstances, has escalated over the past month into a full-blown legal battle. This dispute has led to the filing of a civil rights complaint and four lawsuits (thus far).

In the ongoing dispute, both Baldoni and Lively seem mainly focused on protecting their public images. However, as time passes, they might increasingly require a definitive legal victory to establish their innocence.

Or:

In the ongoing argument between Baldoni and Lively, each appears to be prioritizing their public image. As this dispute continues, they may find it necessary to secure a legal triumph for validation.

Gregory Doll, a lawyer with experience in high-profile entertainment cases, explains that while many of these legal actions resemble public relations campaigns, they do have a genuine legal basis,” or alternatively, “Gregory Doll, a litigator who has handled significant entertainment lawsuits, notes that though these legal battles may appear more like PR stunts, they do carry real legal weight.

The lawsuits contain numerous accusations and responses. Essentially, Lively claims Baldoni has behaved inappropriately through harassment and retaliation, while Baldoni counters that Lively has made false statements against him (defamation).

Baldoni filed lawsuits against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, their publicist Leslie Sloane, as well as the New York Times. The reason for the latter lawsuit is that he claims the newspaper libeled him by misrepresenting the context of text messages and repeating Lively’s storyline. (In a separate case, Baldoni’s former publicist Steph Jones also filed a lawsuit against him.)

Independent of the validity of the lawsuit filed against The Times, they have a legal tactic at their disposal to delay it significantly. This strategy involves filing a motion to dismiss under California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute, claiming that Baldoni is attempting to suppress speech safeguarded by the First Amendment. If the court rules against The Times initially, they can still immediately appeal the decision, thus prolonging the legal process.

In a separate defamation case, Lively and others are being charged with disseminating an untrue account to the New York Times. Baldoni’s legal team filed this lawsuit in a federal court in New York, despite California law regulating her contract. This implies that Lively and the other defendants won’t be able to utilize the California anti-SLAPP statute to defend themselves.

They might argue for discarding the 179-page document, partly because it appears more like a lengthy rebuttal narrative instead of clearly detailing each individual claim of defamation.

In her explanation, Caitlin Kovacs, a lawyer specializing in defamation cases at Benesch, suggests that individuals should identify the specific statements they believe are false, provide evidence to demonstrate those statements as facts rather than opinions, and prove that those facts are not protected by any privilege.

For the majority of it, she suggests that Baldoni seems to be contending that Lively may have misrepresented his statements or misunderstood their original meaning – not that she fabricated them entirely from imagination.

Kovacs remarks, “It appears he doesn’t directly challenge the main accusations against him.” He also mentions that she claims he called her attractive, which he acknowledges, and that she says he complimented her on her scent, again something he admits to. These assertions could make it challenging for him to argue a case of defamation based on them.

In both scenarios, Baldoni’s team would need to devise strategies to circumvent the privileges that safeguard litigants’ ability to sue and the media’s prerogative to cover lawsuits. The Times could argue that it was exercising its right to keep its readers informed by reporting on a legal dispute, specifically Lively’s civil rights complaint.

Kovacs states that it’s improbable that Lively or any of the defendants in these court cases would be held accountable for anything included in their court filings.

On the other hand, Lively’s lawsuit against Baldoni doesn’t seem to be hampered by significant technical obstacles. The allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation are based on facts, which means this case might well stand up during a summary judgment or even proceed to a full trial.

In relation to the allegation of harassment, it’s crucial for a jury to decide whether Baldoni and producer Jamey Heath acted with “persistent or extreme” behavior that significantly disrupted the workplace, making it an unpleasant or hostile environment.

The distinctive feature of Lively’s legal case is the counterclaim for retaliation. Her legal team successfully gathered compelling evidence, such as text messages from Baldoni’s representatives discussing attempts to “damage” or “discredit” her. Lively claims that Baldoni’s group was seeking revenge for her speaking out against harassment.

To establish her case, Lively wouldn’t necessarily need to prove the truth of her harassment allegations. Instead, she would be required to demonstrate that she experienced some form of unfavorable job action, such as a demotion or dismissal, due to voicing her concerns.

According to employment litigator Camron Dowlatshahi, it might be challenging to substantiate that claim,” or

“Camron Dowlatshahi, an expert in employment litigation, suggests that it could be difficult to verify such a statement.

Dowlatshahi points out that the supposed smear campaign occurred following the end of Lively’s employment. Furthermore, he suggests that it might be challenging to demonstrate damages, like missed movie roles, due to allegedly fabricated negative posts or articles possibly orchestrated by Baldoni’s publicity team.

Apart from defamation, Baldoni also filed a lawsuit against Lively for interfering with contracts. He claims that she and Reynolds coerced his talent agency, WME, into terminating their contract, an accusation WME denies. Additionally, he alleges that Lively took control over the creative aspects of “It Ends With Us,” although he did not sue Sony, who is said to have given Lively the authority to make her own edits to the project.

Baldoni’s lawsuit further asserted a charge of “civil extortion,” implying that she made false accusations and employed threats in an attempt to hold sway over him.

Essentially, lawyers imply that the case has sufficient depth to continue for an extended period. As tensions escalate, the proceedings might gather steam on their own, possibly mirroring the defamation trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard in terms of recurrence.

Dowlatshahi characterizes the scenario as “an unquestionably strategic public relations move on all fronts,” yet he suggests that lawyers might feel compelled to argue their case not only within a legal courtroom but also before the court of public opinion.

He explains that his job is to provide the best service possible for his clients. If a client is determined to protect their own reputation, even if it means damaging another’s, then he will assist in that endeavor.

Eventually, though, they may wear each other down enough to consider an amicable resolution.

He suggests that eventually, both parties might understand that people will grow tired of this ongoing exchange. From a reputational standpoint, neither side seems to be gaining any benefit.

Doll agrees: “Once the dust settles, calmer heads are going to prevail.”

Read More

2025-01-24 23:49