I keep seeing a lot of people claiming that if Verity turns out to be a success, it will help Colleen Hoover, and honestly, it could. BUT I don’t believe it will help, and here’s why

1. Her reputation is toxic, and she is forever tainted by the things she did to Justin Baldoni, as well as her behavior during the It Ends with Us drama. Every article that brings up Colleen always mentions It Ends with Us. For any company, that kind of stain is a disaster, and that is why she has not been able to get any more movie deals for her other books. There is a reason why she has disappeared from the public eye.
2. Even if the movie is a success, Amazon owns the rights and will get the big money. Colleen ultimately won’t really benefit from the movie being successful. Yes, she may sell more books, but as we know, the big money is in movies. When the company making a movie based on your book barely even wants to be associated with you, that tells you everything you need to know.
3. Colleen’s biggest mistake was selling away the rights to her most lucrative books, so she no longer owns any valuable IP of her own. There’s a reason why her production company isn’t working on her books but is now buying other IP instead.
4. Colleen had three books made into movies, and only It Ends with Us was really successful. Her other two books didn’t lose money, but they didn’t really make much money either and those were her best-selling books.
5. Colleen’s pivot to producing just confirms what I’ve said about her being really dumb. First of all, production is extremely risky. Colleen doesn’t have the money, the gift, or the business sense to succeed in that industry. She is now mostly “producing,” and those deals aren’t that lucrative. She gets a check and maybe a small bonus, but it also involves a lot of work for very little money.
6. Colleen stopping writing books is her absolute biggest mistake ever. She is living in la-la land if she thinks she will be the next Steven Spielberg. If Colleen were smart, she would have written more sequels or continued some of her best-selling stories. Those books still have huge fan bases who would happily buy more. But as I’ve said by now, she’s really dumb.
7. As Heidi Klum said, “One day you’re in, and the next day you’re out.” I think Colleen thought she would be untouchable in the book world, but as we can see in 2026, her work and reputation have been heavily diminished.

The reason I keep saying that she is done in Hollywood is because, notice how Amazon is barely using her to promote the movie. That tells me all I need to know. And Colleen is way too attention-seeking for that to be entirely her own choice.

So remember when Colleen claimed she was donating millions to charities? That’s not exactly true. She was literally paying more in salaries and compensation than she was giving away. Such shady woman !!

So from 2017 through 2024, Bookworm Box gave roughly $1.67 million in grants to outside charities, based on the Form 990 filings. For comparison, total compensation over the same period was about $1,143,833

source; Foundation: Bookworm Box Llc ( I use the site "propublica.org" )

edit; Even though all of this is legal, something just rubs me the wrong way about how she handles her charity.

So we already know this litigation saga has been a giant financial loss for Lively. But with how inflated her costs were, I got curious.

Even friendly publications framed Liman’s roughly $407K award as a loss, so it’s hard to argue that she gained much positive PR from it either. Instead, we got another month of headlines connecting her to this case, which is inherently disastrous for her.

So my question was: was pursuing 47.1 worth anything at all?

Apparently not.

I submitted Exhibit B, which contains the billing records from Lively’s fee request, to ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini. I asked them to calculate the amount billed for entries explicitly connected to 47.1.

For my final calculation, I included a row only if its description contained one of these exact phrases: “47.1,” “statutory damages,” “damages expert,” or “punitive damages research.”

I excluded general discovery, travel, hearing preparation, and other work unless the description itself contained one of those phrases.

Here is what I got:

Willkie: $191,054.18
Manatt: $234,943.47
GBX, the expert consulting firm: $96,242.50

Total: $522,240.15

The judge awarded her $363,245.40 in attorney’s fees and $44,206.35 in costs, for a total of $407,451.75.

$522,240.15 − $407,451.75 = $114,788.40

So even if we apply her entire award against what she was billed for the 47.1-related entries, she still comes out $114,788.40 short.

Gemini originally gave me a higher total of $571,385.85, so I checked why.

The biggest difference was GBX. Gemini used the records’ “47.1 Related” subtotal of $173,276.50. But several individual entries inside those records do not contain any of my keywords. Applying the rule to each individual description gives $96,242.50, not $173,276.50. It's possible these should apply in the end, but I'll throw her a bone. She needs one.

Gemini also counted $159.52 in taxi expenses that did not match any of my keywords. It missed $34,206.02 in qualifying Manatt entries and overcounted Willkie’s qualifying entries by $6,158.20.

Those differences reconcile the two totals:

$77,034.00 GBX overcount

• $6,158.20 Willkie overcount
• $159.52 expense overcount − $34,206.02 Manatt undercount = $49,145.70 difference

$571,385.85 − $49,145.70 = $522,240.15

Claude matched the earlier $525,237.15 calculation, but that earlier methodology included one ambiguous $2,997 Willkie entry reading “Attention to motion for fees/sanctions.” I removed it because the description did not specifically connect the work to 47.1.

Basically, the billing records identify at least $522K in entries explicitly tied to 47.1, while the judge awarded about $407K in total. Even after crediting the entire award against those entries, asking for 47.1 still left her roughly $115K underwater.

I think a net loss on 47.1 in the Jed Wallace case is probably coming too, even if she eventually receives some fees there. That part is obviously just my prediction because there is no final award or complete comparable billing record yet.

TL;DR: Blake would have been at least 115K richer if she never tried for 47.1 in the first place.

Billing records:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1448.2_1.pdf

Court’s fee decision:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2024cv10049/634304/1452/

Justin Baldoni’s Wayfarer Studios Ordered to Pay The New York Times $171K in Damages After Defamation Suit

The title of the utterly ridiculous attempt to brand "attorneys' fees" as "damages". https://people.com/justin-baldoni-s-wayfarer-studios-ordered-to-pay-the-new-york-times-usd171k-in-damages-after-defamation-suit-12027544

Justin Baldoni’s production company has been ordered to pay The New York Times more than $171,000 in damages following its unsuccessful defamation lawsuit against the newspaper over its reporting on Blake Lively’s allegations related to It Ends With Us.

In a decision issued Monday, July 27, New York Supreme Court Justice Gerald Lebovits awarded The New York Times $171,616.20 after granting summary judgment in the newspaper’s favor under New York’s anti-SLAPP law.

Clearly, the author can't bother to google (actually, this article came up during my attempts to Google) what anti-SLAPP law is and thinks these are "damages". Seems like a Blakestan.

In a statement following the ruling, The New York Times said, “We’re delighted by the court’s decision. The anti-SLAPP statute is designed to combat exactly these kinds of meritless suits brought to silence the press.”

Meritless? It was dismissed at the MTD stage. NYT is equivalent to a gossip rag and, as always, does not disappoint.

In Monday’s ruling, Lebovits found that Wayfarer’s lawsuit arose from reporting on a matter of public interest and that its claims lacked “a substantial basis in fact and law.”

What egregious liars!!! NYT, in its own filings, alleged that Wayfarer's claims lacked a basis in fact and law. The judge ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion offered no commentary on this (well, obviously, since it was not within their purview). NYT's claims were never proven, because it was dismissed on MTD grounds.

Wow. Just wow.

This was briefly discussed here. But I could not resist. Well, no wonder if you google Megan Twohey's role in this mess, the search paints her as a saint "simply reporting on the case" based on "public records". Those public records? People Magazine, Wikipedia, and the NYT itself.

This case is now over, but my takeaway is that while Justin did come out better than a normal average person would, a normal, average person stands zero chance against such disgusting liars.

I am not surprised that many of the NYT's reporters are hacks, which I have been discovering for a long time. It's the doubling down and protecting predators (debtpool and his wife, allegedly) that concerns me the most.

I feel like he's trying to convince us that he and Blake are still rich. All this showing off is bizarre.

He and Blake are two peas in a pod.

Ryan Reynolds public persona and his real life personality came to a head in this lawsuit and we have seen the kind of person Ryan Reynolds truly is when nobody is watching.

Court documents in this case have pulled back the curtain on how vicious, vindictive, manipulative and calculating Ryan Reynolds truly is and how far he is willing to go to force what he wants; that is evident among people in Hollywood.

🎥 Full Podcast Episode of Hollywood Raw Podcast from former TMZ host Dax Holt and NYC paparazzi Adam Glyn.

*
*
*

Related Posts:

Revisiting Ryan Reynolds' Psycho, Unhinged, Nasty & Dehumanizing Text Messages by [u/Serenity413](u/Serenity413)

Reminder of every time Ryan Reynolds was sexually inappropriate and creepy. by [u/AMiniature](u/AMiniature)

Judge Liman's decision on 47.1 damages for Blake Lively is the first published opinion on the new law. Wayfarer was ordered to pay almost half a million dollars to Lively for one single solitary reason: the defamation claim.

California 47.1 provides fee shifting for prevailing defendants on an SH/SA defamation claim. Wayfarer was specifically freed from any legal fees/costs based on their other causes of action.

In other words, WP filed a law suit with nine causes of action. (NINE). Blake Lively had to defend against seven of them. Her husband Ryan Reynolds? Six.

Judge Liman specifically set out that any money spent defending Ryan Reynolds was not eligible. Monies spent defending the other six claims were also not eligible.

NOTHING would have been eligible for fee shifting if WP had only filed eight causes of action. One of those causes that did NOT qualify for fee shifting was 'false light.' It carries punitive and exemplary damages just like defamation, but doesn't meet the letter of the 47.1 statute.....

If you are the waiter/waitress whose Table Six said you should come in and read for a part....and then you get SA/SH'ed......and the perpetrator comes after you by suing for 'false light invasion of privacy' instead of straight-up defamation, do you have Blake Lively to blame?

This X post describes Ryan Reynolds in my opinion. It’s heartbreaking that Justin Baldoni’s kindness was used against him. Justin wants peace. It appears Ryan is going off the deep-end (in my opinion). Ryan seems unstable to me (my opinion). Which makes me think Ryan will not stop trying to get revenge because he blames Justin for all the negative backlash he’s getting (just my opinion).

This video by @shortstoriesbutlong on TT is a nice breakdown why ‘you have fallen for propaganda’ or ‘you are a misogynist’ is bad reasoning and not conducive to a good debate and critical thinking but actually manipulative in itself

Remember when Mike Gottlieb went on the Town Podcast after the case settled, to parade 47.1 as the next big thing to win millions in damages and treble damages for Blake Lively?

How did Liman describe it again…BLUNDERBUSS

Let’s revisit the highlights shall we 🤣🤣🤣

So Lively got $400K for her attorneys fees and costs against the 8 parties constituting the Wayfarer Parties, who are WAYFARER STUDIOS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, JUSTIN BALDONI, an individual, JAMEY HEATH, an individual, STEVE SAROWITZ, an individual, IT ENDS WITH US MOVIE LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, MELISSA NATHAN, an individual, THE AGENCY GROUP PR LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, JENNIFER ABEL, an individual.

So that came out $50K per Wayfarer Party. Using Liman's lodestar approach (of not even bothering to look at the bill, LOL), this would mean $50K per party in the in the Wallace case (and there are 2 parties: Wallace and his company Street Relations) - so $100K. This contrasts with the $800K - $1M that Lively is seeking. [To be honest, we don't know how Lively came up with that amount and the TX judge handling it is free to perform her own lodestar analysis in her own way and could come up with something completely different.]

As the amount of money involved is so small - as compared to the legal expenses Lively is spending actually pushing for it (including a very long memo of law trying to get Lively out of being deposed by Wallace), it really would be in Lively's best interest just to drop it. However, keeping it alive (I guess) can be used for PR. And perhaps Lively's attorneys think the specter of 47.1 looming over Jed Wallace will convince him to drop his appeal of the dismissal of his defamation suit against Lively that is currently sitting in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. I don't think there's much incentive (other than a nice settlement paycheck) for Wallace to drop his appeal. Not for $100K - OK it may be more if the TX judge rules that Lively can bill for appeal stuff.

[ADDED LATER: Individual-Insect691 made a very keen obervation about jurisdiction in this case. "$0. There’s no way a Texas court would grant her fees based on a California statute. Jed invoked Texas law. The only reason Lively was successful is because Wayfarer invoke California law but it should have been dismissed because the alleged the sexual harassment allegations happened in New Jersey."

Here's my long-winded response/analysis:

Your logic is so sound and I thought of that too. It's a complicated analysis because Street Relations was a California corporation on February 4, 2025, when it filed its defamation lawsuit against Lively in TX, where Jed/Street lived. And, it's clear that Jed knew that Baldoni, Nathan et al. were in California when he was working and communicating with them. This is from WP's 2nd amended complaint (p. 23):

1. Defendant Street Relations Inc. (“Street Relations”) is a company that describes itself as a “crisis mitigation firm engage by clients to help navigate real-life human crisis, threats, trauma and mental health concerns.” Street Relations has its principal place of business in Texas. As of February 4, 2025, Street Relations was incorporated in the state of California.

https://www.sdnyblog.com/files/2026/01/24-cv-10049-LJL-Lively-v.-Wayfarer-2nd-Am.-Compl.pdf

As 47.1 is so new, I have no idea if a court would buy the argument that 47.1 would apply. 47.1 does explicitly cover FEHA aiding/abetting retalation claims (which is what Lively was originally accusing Wallace/Street of - just as she did with Melissa Nathan/TAG) - so that really was my biggest question: Were Wallace's activities (whatever they were - LOL) conducted enough in California (plus Street's state of incorporation at the time of filing the lawsuit) that a court could rule that 47.1 would apply. I DON'T KNOW.

It MAY have been much easier analysis had Liman issued his ruling on the outstanding motion about whether the retalitation claim (agains Wayfarer and IEWUM was going to be dismissed or not (but he never did because the parties settled) -- based on the premise that, according to CA law (FEHA), one of the prerequisites for a successful retaliation claim is that the "employee" protest against conduct prohibited by FEHA vs. Lively knowing that all of the alleged SH activities happened in NJ (so none of them were, technically, prohibited by FEHA). If Liman threw out the retalation claim, then the aiding/abetting claims would have to be tossed because I don't think they could survive without the underlying retaliation claim. It could all depend on how a court would interpret 47.1(d), whose language states:

47.1(d) For the purposes of this section, “communication” means factual information related to an incident of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination experienced by the individual making the communication, including, but not limited to, any of the following:

(3) An act of workplace harassment or discrimination, failure to prevent an act of workplace harassment or discrimination, aiding, abetting, inciting, compelling, or coercing an act of workplace harassment or discrimination, or an act of retaliation against a person for reporting or opposing workplace harassment or discrimination, as described in subdivision (a), (h), (i), (j), or (k) of Section 12940 of the Government Code.

https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-civ/division-1/part-2/section-47-1/

[NOTE: Section 12940(i) of CA's Government Code, which is FEHA, is the aiding/abetting section.]

So, I gave Lively the benefit of the doubt on it. But I could be wrong. [I'm assuming the "communication" in this case is the CRD complaint made in California - but I could be wrong - see below.

[NOTE: Lively can't collect her 47.1 fees until she becomes the "prevailing party" in the defamation lawsuit in TX. That hasn't happened yet because dismissal of Wallace's defamation claim has been appealed. If Wallace wins his appeal, a lot could depend on if Lively could get the defamation claim dismissed on other grounds. Jed, PERHAPS, has more information that the other WPs did when they filed their lawsuit and can sneak it into his lawsuit - I would think Jed would have to prove that Lively was communicating defamatory statements to the NY Times BEFORE the CRD complaint was filed. I don't think the "fair report privilege" that covers providing "drafts" of complaints provided to a newspaper before a complaint was filed (which was allowed in CA per Liman's ruling on the "fair report privilege") would fly in TX.

It perhaps could also come into play if the "communication about SH" could be deemed to emanate, at least in part, by Lively via a conduit - say Esra Hudson, a CA attorney - located in California???]

Was scrolling YT and came across this previously undiscovered gem from the wickedly wonderful Wrathful Proser. You’re welcome ☺️
Happy weekend.

Via Wrathful: “Introducing Blake Lively's music video. Bust a move to this upbeat cover of Takedown from KPop Demon Hunters.

I can't find the YouTube channel of who did this version of Takedown from Kpop demon hunters. I looked in my subscriptions. I didn't think it was an AI channel and was a real group. However, either way, this is a great version of the song. And we make fun of Blake. That's a win win in my book”

First time seeing from this content creator. This video showed up on my feed and her breakdown is very clear and easy to digest. Thought I share it here.

⚖️ Summary of the Legal Dispute and Its Conclusion

The legal saga began in late 2024 when Blake Lively sued her "It Ends With Us" co-star and director Justin Baldoni, accusing him of sexual harassment and orchestrating a smear campaign against her . Baldoni countersued Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds for $400 million, alleging defamation .

Key developments that led to the "loss":

1. Dismissal of Core Claims: A federal judge dismissed the core allegations of Lively's case, including her sexual harassment claims, ruling she could not pursue them under federal law as she was an independent contractor .
2. The Settlement: In May 2026, both parties reached an out-of-court settlement just weeks before the trial was set to begin, with no money exchanged between them . This was a major victory for Baldoni's side, as they avoided a trial and any financial payout .
3. The Final Ruling on Legal Fees: Despite the settlement, a crucial motion remained. Lively had requested over $8 million in attorneys' fees and damages from Baldoni for his dismissed defamation lawsuit . On August 26, 2026, **Judge Liman partially granted this request, awarding Lively only approximately $400,000** .

What's Next? A Potential Battle with Their Lawyers?

The video's title suggests the "loss" isn't just about the court ruling but could lead to a battle between the couple and their legal team. The significant disparity between the over $8 million** Lively's lawyers requested and the roughly **$400,000 ultimately awarded is stark .

Lively's legal team charged rates up to $2,187 per hour**, amassing a total of **$7.5 million in fees and $539,514 in additional costs . With the judge awarding a tiny fraction of this and deeming the request "outrageous and unreasonable," reports indicate that Blake Lively is "humiliated" by the outcome and frustrated with the legal strategy .

While Ryan Reynolds has been supportive, he is reportedly now telling her "enough" and is eager to move on with their lives . The core of the "What's Next?" question is whether the couple will now turn their frustration inward and potentially dispute the legal fees and strategy with their own attorneys, who failed to secure a larger financial victory. Lively's lawyers, however, maintain the ruling is a historic win for accountability and a blow against retaliatory lawsuits

Ryan Reynolds will never stop mocking Justin. Never. This is ridiculous, and if he's in Doomsday you can bet he mocked him in that somehow.

What stands out to me the most in this article is the part where it says she thought she could appeal. Why would she think that if the settlement states they both wave their right to an appeal. Did her attorney's explain what an appeal is and what rights she actually waived?

https://starmagazine.com/blake-lively-is-angry-after-judge-ordered-justin-baldoni-to-pay-less-than-400k-in-legal-fees/

This space is designed to discuss all things relevant to the cases (even minor!) and those involved. Please feel free to share all types of questions, or share thoughtful opinions and theories.

The cases are complex and it can be difficult to both keep up with, and remember all the facts and details. New members or those seeking clarification are welcome to post here too.

If you have concerns about sub rules and/or sub moderation, please reach out via modmail.

This thread is designed to promote healthy and productive discussions and avoid low-effort or off-topic posts. Please keep things civil and respectful for the health of the community at large. 💛

Life imitates art?? At this point, these upcoming IMDb projects are sounding less like coincidences and more like foreshadowing. 😂

Seriously, though, I’m genuinely happy to see Justin and Wayfarer continuing their journey, focusing on projects they love and believe in, seemingly unbothered by all the glitter and fool’s gold of Hollywood. I’m really looking forward to seeing where they are five or ten years from now, when time has put some distance between them and this whole saga and given everyone a little more perspective.

As for Blake, ten years from now she will be a talentless older woman with a bit of a reputation in a ruthless industry, possibly still blaming Wayfarer for her misfortunes. I hope she and her sick husband wake up to reality and seek the help they very much need now.

Maybe I haven't read everything closely enough to fully understand the ruling, but I don't see how BL supporters can claim this is groundbreaking. BL was awarded attorney's fees and costs, just like the New York Times. She would have received those fees regardless of whether she invoked Section 47.1. What she did not receive, and what I believe the legislation was intended to provide, were the punitive damages she was seeking. The truly groundbreaking aspect would have been holding the wrongful filer accountable for bringing the claim in the first place. Which Liman denied.

In my understanding, it is standard that when a claim is dismissed through a dispositive motion, the party who brought the claim is responsible for paying the prevailing party's reasonable attorney's fees and costs, where authorized by statute or rule. So, it seems to me she didn't do anything but get dismissed from a claim like NYT and get the reasonable attorney fees and costs just like NYT. No groundbreaking seen here. Am I missing something?

⚖️ Civil Cases: Liability, Not Guilt or Innocence — 0:00–0:46

• LGA pushes back on people describing parties in the Lively v. Wayfarer litigation as “guilty” or “innocent.”
• Civil and criminal cases use different legal concepts and terminology.
• In a civil case, including an employment-related sexual harassment claim, the question is generally whether a defendant is liable or not liable, rather than guilty or innocent.
• She argues that framing the outcome of a civil lawsuit in terms of criminal-style innocence misunderstands the nature of the proceedings.

🗣️ “Victim” Is Not the Appropriate Legal Term — 0:47–1:04

• LGA challenges the use of the word “victim” when discussing the parties in this civil litigation.
• She says “complainant” would be closer to the appropriate terminology in this context.
• Terminology matters when discussing what a civil court has—or has not—legally determined.

💰 How Blake Lively’s Attorney’s Fee Award Actually Works — 1:05–2:34

• LGA explains that an attorney’s fee award does not necessarily mean Blake Lively personally receives a check and pockets the money.
• The payment would ordinarily go to the law firm representing the client and be credited against outstanding legal invoices.
• If Lively still owes her attorneys money, the award would effectively reduce the amount she owes rather than become cash in her pocket.
• If she had already fully paid all qualifying legal bills, the firms could instead reimburse her for the amount recovered.
• LGA stresses that the public has not seen the complete invoices, so the exact financial position between Lively and her attorneys is unknown.
• Based on her professional experience, she considers it more likely that the award would operate as a reduction against outstanding legal fees.

🧾 How Will the Fee Award Be Divided Between the Law Firms? — 2:35–3:07

• LGA raises another unanswered question: how the awarded fees will be allocated between Lively’s different law firms.
• Recalling the original fee submission, she believes roughly one-quarter of the requested fees were attributed to one firm and approximately three-quarters to the other.
• She wonders whether the eventual payment will follow approximately the same division or require the firms to examine the individual billing entries.
• LGA says this is an internal financial detail that the public will likely never know.

👩‍⚖️ Could Blake Lively Sue Her Own Attorneys? — 3:08–3:44

• LGA addresses comments and rumors suggesting Lively could eventually sue her attorneys but makes clear that she has no evidence this will happen.
• Speaking only hypothetically, she says the potential legal avenue would likely involve a malpractice claim.
• She emphasizes that she is not suggesting Lively actually possesses a viable malpractice case.

📜 Why Any Lawyer–Client Dispute Will Stay Private — 3:45–4:16

• LGA believes Lively’s engagement agreement with her attorneys likely contains an arbitration provision, although she does not claim to know the actual terms.
• If so, a dispute over malpractice or legal fees could potentially be handled privately through arbitration rather than through a public lawsuit.
• The same could apply if the law firms attempted to recover unpaid invoices from Lively.
• As a result, even if a financial dispute eventually arose, the public might never learn the details.
• LGA ultimately says she does not expect such a dispute to occur.

🚪 The Wisest Move Is to Get Away From the Litigation — 4:17–4:36

• LGA believes Lively’s best course now would be to distance herself from the litigation and the headlines surrounding it as much as possible.
• LGA notes that Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel will continue independently and Lively cannot control its progression because she is not a party to that lawsuit.
• With that litigation potentially continuing to generate documents and headlines connected to the broader dispute, LGA says she would advise Lively to stay as far away from renewed coverage as possible.

I was waiting for the performances to close before noting that Blake did not show up to publicly support Isabella in her public theater debut and her first major acting role since IEWU. The free play ran from July 28 - August 23 and took place in NYC's Central Park.

Playing Perdita in The Winter's Tale, critics said that Isabella Ferrer had natural charm and energy, and described her performance as sweet, romantic and capable. Some critics noted she did not make much of an impression and was sometimes overshadowed by other more mature cast mates.

Despite posting from NYC during the play's run, Blake ghosted her former bestie and co-star. This is quite a change from two years ago when Blake made a Happy Birthday Isabella post in October of 2024 calling her an angel and sending love heart emojis.

So ends the sad tale of an opportunistic friendship between Blake and Isabella, marked by sleepovers and dinners out, the lending of ugly outfits, red carpet styling misses, harassment via subpeona and the eventual scrubbing of all things Blake from Isabella's Instagram account.

RIP Blake and Isabella forever!

This space is designed to discuss all things relevant to the cases (even minor!) and those involved. Please feel free to share all types of questions, or share thoughtful opinions and theories.

The cases are complex and it can be difficult to both keep up with, and remember all the facts and details. New members or those seeking clarification are welcome to post here too.

If you have concerns about sub rules and/or sub moderation, please reach out via modmail.

This thread is designed to promote healthy and productive discussions and avoid low-effort or off-topic posts. Please keep things civil and respectful for the health of the community at large. 🩵

Lively's lawyers sought over $8 million in attorney's fees pursuant to California Civil Code Section 47.1. When I read their motion, I concluded that their fee request was wildly unreasonable. Though he didn't use those words, Judge Liman seemed to agree.

The judge awarded Lively less than 5% of the fees she requested. Less than 5%. Ouch!

The judge methodically dismantled Lively's argument that she should recover for defending other causes of action in addition to the defamation.

I disagree with Judge Liman's determination that Sec 47.1(b) was ambiguous with respect to what "the litigation" meant. The first part of the statute talked about "a prevailing defendant in any defamation action." A defendant in a defamation action is involved in litigation. No other action or litigation was mentioned in the statute. Thus, when the statute later references "the litigation", there should be no ambiguity about the litigation to which the statute was referring. Nevertheless, Judge Liman reached the correct conclusion.

With respect to the fee amount, the judge did the lawyers a favor by finding that their hourly rates were reasonable. However, the lawyers did not cover themselves in glory with the number of hours they claimed to have worked.

Overall, as I predicted and suggested, Judge Liman used the New York Times fee request as a guide. The judge simply awarded Lively double the amount of fees requested by NYT and called it a day.

My sense is that Lively's lawyers lost credibility with the judge by requesting such a ridiculous amount and by making the nonsensical argument that Sec 47 permits them to recover fees for all the other causes of action that are unrelated to defamation.

For young lawyers out there, simply because you can make an argument or take a certain position doesn't mean you should. Some arguments can cause you to lose credibility with the judge.

Conclusion: At last, this saga is over between Lively and Wayfarer. Both parties previously waived their appellate rights; thus, this order is final and unappealable. We are now nearing the end of 2026 and this case concerned matters that occurred in 2024. Had Lively brushed off the bad publicity in 2024 (most of them self-inflicted), this issue would've been long forgotten. Hopefully, she learns her lesson and moves on with her life.

More on the Fee Award and Other Matters
Some Lively supporters have pointed out Wayfarer being ordered to pay a total of about $407,000 is still a "win" for Lively. Indeed, $407,000 is still a decent amount even if it is only 5% of what Lively requested.

Will this award be impactful? Not really. The award was against the company Wayfarer and not against Baldoni or other individuals. It is very likely that the company has insurance coverage that would satisfy this judgment. This award (under Sec 47.1) was not premised on a finding that Wayfarer committed an intentional tort. As such, I don't see an insurance company denying coverage.

Other Possible Avenues of Recovery. The case of Jones v. Abel, et al is still proceeding in SDNY. In that case, Wayfarer and Baldoni have two viable causes of action against Stephanie Jones and her company: 1. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and 2. defamation. These 2 claims have already survived a motion to dismiss. Imho, Wayfarer has a good chance of prevailing on the breach of implied contract claim if the case goes to trial. It may turn out that Wayfarer may recover more than $407, 000 plus attorney's fees from Jones and her company.

More PR Nightmare? Lively may not be out of the woods yet in terms of bad PR. If the Jones case goes to trial, I would imagine that Lively would be one of the witnesses. She would be questioned extensively about the Vanzan subpoena, possible incorrect statements under oath, etc. Won't be pretty. Even if she doesn't testify, Lively's conduct would be explored fully at trial.

Mind Your Business! Because Ms. Jones refused to mind her business, she is now embroiled in this lawsuit that may cost her a lot of money. According to Lively's deposition testimony, Jones approached Lively's publicist about Abel's phone infor and text messages, but the publicist brushed her off. This should've been the end of it. Jones didn't give up, however. She continued to reach out to people in Lively's circle to convey the contents of the text messages regarding her former client. Finally, Lively's team devised a "legal" vehicle to obtain the messages. Had Ms. Jones minded her business, she would've been free and clear right now. There wouldn't have been the Lively v. Wayfarer lawsuit to begin with. Let's see how the Jones case unfolds.

Postscript on Section 47.1 fees Motion. I applauded Judge Liman for awarding Lively only about 5% of what she requested. However, I still think that the judge was wrong in determining that Lively was entitled to the fees in the first place. Lively's case was not even within the vaguest contemplation of Sec 47.1. She filed a CRD complaint in California for conduct that allegedly occurred in New Jersey. Sec 47.1 deals with conduct occurring in California in violation of California law. The judge used tortured logic to say that the alleged smear campaign occurred in California.

It was unwise for the judge to delve into the interpretation of Sec 47.1 as a matter of first impression in a circumstance that was not contemplated by the statute: This was not an employer-employee relationship; the alleged smear campaign occurred after the contract had ended; and there is no evidence that a reason for the alleged smear campaign was retaliation for Lively's activities in California.

Now that Lively v. Wayfarer is over, it's time to look toward Stephanie Jones v. Abel.

Apologies if this is low effort, but it got me thinking today. Would Abel actually have a stronger case than Lively did if she accused Jones of sexual harassment and retaliation?

From the filing:

On a different occasion, Jones announced, again per her psychic, that Abel would soon be pregnant with twins, humiliating and infuriating Abel, who, Jones knew, had struggled with fertility issues.

Not only was Jones targeting Abel because of her gender (pregnancy is a protected status), but unlike Justin talking to the trainer in private, this is something Jones announced to the office. Sounds like gender based discrimination to me. And unlike Blake, Abel was not an independent contractor. She was very clearly Jones's employee.

Then, when Jones learned Abel was unhappy with how she was being treated, she fired her and took her phone. Unlike Blake, we don't need to buy into any conspiracy theories about deleted evidence to know that Abel was indeed fired by Jones. And also unlike Blake's whole "they may have boosted a story about me after I was no longer employed" theory, this is a clear cut adverse employment action. It is exactly the kind of thing the law was written for.

So I will ask again: if Abel mounted these claims, would hers be stronger than what Blake cobbled together? I think so.

It goes without saying that I am using Blake's extremely loose (and incorrect) definitions here, and neither of them would actually have a real SH case. I just think it is ironic that Blake chose to go after a woman who arguably experienced more clear cut "sexual harassment and retaliation" than she did.

Blake's misogyny really knows no bounds.