Login

u/Humble_Network_7653

Inc Magazine: Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni’s Feud Ruined a $100 Million Brand. It’s a Crucial Lesson for Every Founder
▲ 12 r/ItEndsWithLawsuits

Inc Magazine: Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni’s Feud Ruined a $100 Million Brand. It’s a Crucial Lesson for Every Founder

Link: https://www.inc.com/stephanie-davis/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-feud-100-million-brand-business-lesson-founder/91344765
***

SUMMARY

The Inc. article basically argues that the Blake Lively vs Justin Baldoni feud became a business case study on how fast public perception can destroy brand value — even when the facts are still disputed.

The core message was basically:
“Markets don’t care if you’re right. They care if you’re liked.”

According to the article, the fallout allegedly wiped out over $100M+ in combined brand value tied to endorsements, future projects, partnerships, and public trust.

Main points:

• This stopped being a normal celebrity feud and turned into a full-scale PR/legal war involving lawsuits, countersuits, leaks, online narratives, TikTok discourse, and fan polarization.

• Blake claimed she was the victim of a coordinated smear campaign that damaged both her reputation and business ventures. Reports later estimated her claimed damages at over $161 million.

• Baldoni also claimed major reputational and financial damage, saying the allegations cost him projects, partnerships, and industry standing.

• The article’s bigger point is that public trust is now an actual business asset. Once audiences emotionally disengage, facts often become secondary.

• Inc. framed this as a warning for founders/businesses too:
- founders ARE the brand,
- reputation affects investor confidence,
- online narratives spread faster than legal outcomes,
- and social media outrage can destroy years of brand-building in weeks.

• One interesting point was that both sides risk “winning the case but losing the audience.” Legal victories don’t automatically repair reputational damage anymore.

• The article also highlights modern PR warfare:
- selective leaks,
- resurfaced interviews,
- fandom culture,
- algorithm-driven outrage,
- and viral social media narratives amplifying everything.

• Another takeaway was that timing, tone, and public response matter almost more than the evidence itself in the social media era.

• Even though It Ends With Us was commercially successful, the controversy largely overshadowed the movie and damaged discourse around everyone involved.

Overall takeaway:
The feud became less about who is legally right and more about how quickly public perception can erase years of branding, goodwill, partnerships, and trust.

The article basically argues that reputation today works almost like stock value:
volatile, emotional, and heavily driven by online narratives.

u/Humble_Network_7653 — 1 hour ago
▲ 148 r/ItEndsWithLawsuits

Britt: Blake Lively Settlement Breakdown, Moving Goalposts & Fee Drama

SUMMARY

Britt broke down the latest development in the Blake Lively case, where Blake settled all claims with the Wayfarer parties and remaining defendants. She noted that the individual defendants were dismissed because the sexual harassment claims themselves were dismissed, though Blake is still trying to pursue attorney’s fees under California Civil Code 47.1.

According to Britt, Blake has “some issues to overcome” before getting any meaningful fee award.

She pointed out that the court refused supplemental briefing on the “without malice” issue, meaning there’s still no evidence or testimony establishing whether Blake’s communications — including the lawsuit and New York Times story — were actually made “without malice.”

Britt also questioned whether Blake can even be considered the “prevailing party” when the outcome came through dismissals and settlements rather than a merits decision.

One of Britt’s biggest criticisms was Blake’s continued attempt to apply California law to events and communications that largely didn’t happen in California:

“Blake keeps trying to apply California law to things that didn’t happen in California.”

She also laughed off the idea that Blake could recover huge attorney’s fees here. Britt estimated that a reasonable fee award for the motion-to-dismiss work would likely be relatively modest — maybe $15k–$50k, and even with punitive multipliers, perhaps around $150k at most.

That’s why Britt mocked Blake’s earlier request for $800,000 in fees in the Texas/Jed Wallace matter, warning viewers to:

“Expect delusion to drop on the docket.”

She repeatedly emphasized that she just doesn’t see how Blake gets to some massive payout based on the current procedural posture and lack of evidence on malice.

Toward the end, Britt became especially sarcastic about how the narrative around the lawsuit keeps changing:

“It was always about settling her claims. No wait, it was always about the sexual harassment. No wait, it was always about the retaliation.”

And then the closing line:

“Hard to hit a goalpost that moves so much.”

Britt’s overall takeaway was that Blake may try to frame the settlements as a victory publicly, but legally, Britt sees major hurdles remaining — especially regarding fees, malice, and the application of California law.

youtu.be
u/Humble_Network_7653 — 3 days ago
▲ 15 r/ItEndsWithLawsuits

Just embrace the lawsuit chaos energy and post your sentence below (or not).

Edit: You can always fake it or keep the info to yourself without commenting.

***

Pick the month you were born:

January — I leaked
February — I subpoenaed
March — I cross-examined
April — I gaslit
May — I fact-checked
June — I screenshot
July — I PR-spinned
August — I settled with
September — I side-eyed
October — I deposed
November — I yelled at
December — I countersued

***

Pick the day (number) you were born on:

1 — a group chat
2 — a PR team
3 — leaked text messages
4 — a court filing
5 — a Reddit thread
6 — a fake source
7 — my publicist
8 — a crisis manager
9 — the internet
10 — TMZ
11 — a lawyer
12 — a TikTok comment section
13 — a witness statement
14 — an NDA
15 — a press tour
16 — a burner account
17 — a paparazzi photo
18 — a deposition transcript
19 — a fan account
20 — a settlement rumor
21 — a celebrity friendship
22 — the narrative
23 — a tabloid article
24 — a cease & desist
25 — a community note
26 — a podcast interview
27 — an emergency statement
28 — a courtroom sketch
29 — a damage-control post
30 — the evidence folder
31 — the receipts

***

Last number of the year you were born:

1 — in a hotel lobby
2 — on Instagram Live
3 — outside the courthouse
4 — behind the scenes
5 — during the press tour
6 — in the group chat
7 — at the premiere
8 — on a podcast
9 — during damage control
0 — in the comments section

***

Pick the color of shirt you are wearing:

White — because the screenshots were public anyway.
Black — because that’s what the lawyers advised.
Pink — because the PR team said so.
Red — because the internet chose violence.
Blue — because I’m innocent until proven guilty.
Green — because the timeline isn’t adding up.
Purple — because the receipts keep resurfacing.
Grey — because nobody can keep their story straight.
Yellow — because someone leaked it to TMZ.
Orange — because the comments were turned off.
Brown — because the NDA expired.
Other — because Reddit detectives found everything.
None — because this case needs its own Netflix documentary.

reddit.com
u/Humble_Network_7653 — 7 days ago
▲ 291 r/ItEndsWithLawsuits

Britt: Blake Lively Accused of Rewriting History Over Jamey Heath Allegations

Summary

***

Britt says the statement claiming Blake Lively’s concerns “deserve to be heard” is pure PR spin meant to erase what she believes Blake did to Jamey Heath from Wayfarer Studios. According to Britt, Blake fabricated sexual harassment allegations against him, including claims about a porn addiction and inappropriate behavior, while playing into racist stereotypes portraying Black men as sexually aggressive toward white women.

Britt argues this is part of a bigger pattern, bringing up Blake’s past controversies including her racist lifestyle brand scandal, cease and desist threats over media coverage, and her plantation wedding held beside slave quarters where enslaved people were tortured and murdered. Britt says people are pretending this history never happened while Blake and her lawyers now try to rewrite the narrative and deny anything was fabricated.

The alleged comment that Jamey “runs the set like a barbecue” is presented as another example of racial bias. Britt accuses Blake of using “white woman tears” and public relations cleanup to protect her image while damaging a Black man with false allegations. The video ends with Britt condemning Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds, Ezra Hudson, Michael Gottlieb, and Sigrid McCawley.

youtube.com
u/Humble_Network_7653 — 7 days ago
▲ 134 r/ItEndsWithLawsuits

I know she’s not everyone’s cup of tea but if you’re interested…
It’s more brutal if you watch it otherwise here’s the summary

***

Summary

Here’s my free PR lesson to Blake Lively and Meghan Markle: when the media turns on you, shut up. Seriously. Stop talking. Every public figure gets dragged eventually, and the more you complain, clap back, cry about the coverage, or try to “correct the narrative,” the more attention you bring to the story. Unless somebody is falsely accusing you of an actual crime, say your piece briefly and move on. Otherwise? Shut the f*** up and let it pass.

Americans do not care about rich celebrities whining about PR problems. They just don’t. Blake Lively is married to Ryan Reynolds, reportedly worth hundreds of millions, has businesses, a mansion, four kids, fame, money, and a life most people would kill for. From where I’m sitting, your life is great. So stop publicly agonizing over bad press every five seconds because all you’re doing is making people pay even more attention to it.

u/Humble_Network_7653 — 9 days ago
▲ 208 r/ItEndsWithLawsuits

Credit to Ashley Briana Eve for putting together this simple, easy to follow timeline:

- August 2024: Premier of It Ends With Us

- August 2024: Ashley Avignone connected Stephanie Jones to Blake Lively

- Sept 3, 2024: Requests dailies to be deleted

- Sept 27, 2024: Files Vanzan Lawsuit (only thing this shell company has done is make a purchase for a Swift music video)

- End of October, 2024: Working with New York Times based on Metadata

-November 19, 2024: Taylor Swift out with Ronan Farrow

- December 20, 2024: Files CRD complaint

- December 21, 2024: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine

By the time she made the request to delete dailies she had already seen the texts.

Additional thoughts:

Contemporaneous documents point to a request to delete dailies being made by Blake Lively to Ange Giannetti but as of now there is no direct evidence of her making that request herself.

In her deposition, Blake Lively was asked directly whether she requested for the dailies to be deleted, and she said no.

Looking at the sequence here, the question becomes motive. Who actually benefits from those dailies being gone?

Ange Giannetti does not appear to gain anything from that outcome and based on what we have seen, does not seem aligned with the idea of deleting them.

At the same time, we do not even know if anything was actually deleted.

Questions that keep coming up for me:

- Does a contractor or outside party even have the authority to request deletion of production dailies they do not own?

- If a request like that is valid, would it not require something formal in writing with a clear reason, instead of just a casual ask?

- Who actually owns and controls those dailies in the first place, and who has the power to approve or deny deletion?

- If there was no nudity or sensitive content, what would justify a request to delete them at all?

- Why entertain the idea instead of shutting it down immediately if there is no clear basis for it?

- What was actually said in those conversations that made deletion even come up as an option?

Another angle I keep thinking about:

Ange Giannetti is experienced and has dealt with conflict before. It is possible she did not shut it down immediately, not because she agreed, but because shutting it down outright could escalate things with Blake Lively. Listening, discussing internally, and handling it more strategically behind the scenes would make sense in that position.

- So what actually happened after that request was raised?

- Was Wayfarer made aware of it?

- Was anything acted on at all?

If nothing was deleted, then someone had to make a decision not to act on that request. So what was said behind the scenes, and who made that call?

u/Humble_Network_7653 — 11 days ago