Movies

Blake Lively branded a ‘toxic diva’ as experts dissect her latest catastrophic legal move against Justin Baldoni

BBG News

The actions taken by Blake Lively in summoning over a dozen journalists and smaller content creators have sparked a heated debate about freedom of expression, and crisis management specialist Eric Schiffer warns that this step might result in long-term harm to her personal brand and public persona.

Schiffer, CEO of Reputation Management Consultants, states that suing micro-creators for casual conversations is excessive, implying a bully mentality rather than intelligence. When one requests IP addresses and PayPal records from casual vloggers, it could appear as if one is blatantly infringing upon the First Amendment during daylight hours.

The summonses (directed towards creators who have a relatively small fan base) that demand private details like personal info and financial documents, have led to criticism on the internet and worries about celebrities going too far.

In simpler terms, Blake’s aggressive use of subpoenas is being criticized by Schiffer as behaving like a difficult and toxic star, exploiting creators. He suggests that fans who initially admired Blake might change their feelings to disdain when they learn about her legal actions against amateur content creators.

Warning is given by Schiffer that the vibrant, friendly public persona of Lively, who is known for being part of the beloved power couple in Hollywood with her spouse Ryan Reynolds, could potentially face some challenges too.

He states, ‘The Disney-like allure suddenly transforms into a privacy menace when she demands creators’ data and immerses Blake’s romantic comedy in a barrage of legal proceedings. This data demand spree could potentially turn “America’s darling” into “Big Brother Blake,” accompanied by an image of Big Brother overseeing ants, which many fans find unpalatable. Summoning a channel with just 38 subscribers to federal court is equivalent to needlessly clubbing baby seals for entertainment in terms of public relations.’

Although the tactic might stem from worries over false information or safeguarding reputation, Schiffer warns that it could unintentionally ignite a David-versus-Goliath tale that spreads rapidly.

It’s not wise to use heavy legal weapons against tiny blogs with few readers, unless you want a David-versus-Goliath-like public outcry or are absolutely certain of your case. Once they receive a subpoena, even the smallest bloggers can transform into digital martyrs; their followers will mobilize like a swarm of angry hornets.

Based on Schiffer’s perspective, the potential long-term danger isn’t merely negative news headlines; rather, it involves cementing an unfavorable storyline.

In his own words, Baldoni didn’t have to plan a counteraction with this strategy because Blake’s legal team essentially provided him with the ammunition. However, he finds it questionable when she is rummaging through strangers’ Gmail accounts. Overly controlling celebrities risk damaging their image and reputation when they attempt to silence critics, as this can lead to a persistent narrative of being unstable and irrational.

To reclaim the storyline, Lively should swiftly take action and ensure she doesn’t come off as defensive or elusive in her responses. (Schiffer’s suggestion)

His suggestion? ‘Offer a brief, supportive statement such as: “These subpoenas are for evidence gathering, not a witch hunt; Blake fully supports freedom of speech.” This can help fill the news gap before it becomes potentially damaging.’

Remaining silent, he adds, would be a critical error.

1. “Not speaking out can lead to disastrous consequences, as it allows YouTube attorneys to write the script and permanently label Blake with the word ‘Bully’,” Schiffer explains. “Remaining silent sets off the entire Streisand effect.” (Informal)

2. “If you don’t speak up, it gives YouTube lawyers the opportunity to compose the script for you and brand Blake as a bully,” Schiffer points out. “By staying quiet, you unleash the full force of the Streisand effect.” (Formal)

3. “Silence means YouTube lawyers get to write the storyline, staining Blake with the label ‘Bully’,” Schiffer notes. “Remain silent and the Streisand effect will take over completely.” (Concise)

As a devoted follower, I’d like to echo the sentiments of Jason Mudd, our esteemed CEO and Managing Partner at Axia Public Relations. His observation about the subpoenas conveying a “chilling message” that dissent would be answered by legal intimidation truly resonates with me.

In my perspective, though it might be technically acceptable, it seems to exude an unwelcome display of power rather than a genuine quest for truth. It could potentially damage trust and raise questions regarding the motive behind this action: Was the aim to seek justice or to suppress opposition?

‘Public figures are already under intense scrutiny. It might seem excessive or even punitive to focus on micro-influencers with a small number of followers, as Mudd pointed out. If the subpoenas seem more about managing appearances than having real legal significance, public opinion will be less understanding.’

Instead of directly addressing the issue by attacking individuals, Mudd proposed releasing a transparent refutation of untrue allegations in a public forum.

Additionally, he suggested that Lively should seek legal action only when it is absolutely essential, appropriate, and tactical.

As an ardent admirer of David B. Hoppe, the visionary California-based attorney who founded Gamma Law, I found myself deeply intrigued by his insightful thoughts on the delicate balance between safeguarding a client’s interests in a civil case and respecting the rights of independent creators and journalists. This conundrum, masterfully addressed by Mr. Hoppe, is indeed a complex dance that demands careful navigation to ensure justice for all parties involved.

He explained to DailyMail.com that subpoenas like these often have a silencing impact, causing people to hesitate in expressing their opinions freely due to the possibility of facing legal consequences or being targeted for harassment.

Hoppe further stated, ‘Regarding these subpoenas, the court must weigh the significance of Lively’s need to uphold her allegation of a strategic smear campaign by Baldoni against the freedom of expression of these content producers.’

Regarding the possibility of this situation establishing a questionable pattern for how parties involved in civil lawsuits handle online discussions, Hoppe expressed: ‘If such wide-ranging subpoenas, like those in this case, are not contested, they could establish a legal tactic that views common online commentary as potential evidence. This could lead wealthy plaintiffs to request personal data from platforms every time criticism arises.’

He clarified that these types of investigations can transform from fact-finding missions into acts of intimidation, especially when they focus on smaller content creators who have limited influence and aren’t directly involved in the main disagreement.

One potential outcome could be that independent voices may choose to censor themselves to prevent legal expenses, thereby limiting the scope of public discourse to platforms that can regularly afford legal advice.

DailyMail.com has reached out to Lively and Baldoni’s reps for comment. 

Last week, I found myself right in the middle of a buzzing social media storm when Lively, a notable entity, served a subpoena on Google. The request was for data related to YouTube accounts that were expressing support for Justin Baldoni. This action certainly stirred up quite a conversation!

The following individuals are said to have received subpoenas from Lively: Candace Owens, a well-known conservative figure, Andy Signore, and the notorious celebrity news personality, Perez Hilton.

As a lifestyle enthusiast, I find myself deeply concerned about the recent legal inquiry being labeled as an “intrusion of personal privacy” and “questionable” by passionate content creators. They believe this investigation is an attempt to muffle their voices as they critically evaluated a Gossip Girl star during her high-profile lawsuit with her It Ends With Us co-star, Baldoni.

Among the YouTube influencers we’ve reached out to, some boast a massive following numbering in the hundreds of thousands. The one who stands out as particularly renowned is Candace Owens.

Some individuals with fewer than 300 followers express that they lack the financial resources to hire a lawyer to contest the request for data.

A summons issued to Google on July 3, as reported by DailyMail.com, requires at least 16 content creators to disclose their email addresses, phone numbers, residential addresses, and financial details for their premium accounts. This includes credit card or bank account numbers, cryptocurrency wallet addresses, and a detailed record of each session they’ve had since May 1, 2024, with specific dates and times.

Andy Signore, the host of Popcorned Planet’s YouTube channel, shared with DailyMail.com his suspicion that Lively might be attempting to expose the anonymous crew members from “It Ends With Us” who provided him information for his upcoming documentary series.

I must confess, I was taken aback when he made that statement. It’s not due to any secretive intentions of my own, but rather his audacity to try and browbeat and intimidate free-thinking reporters. Rest assured, I won’t back down!

‘My lawyers and I will be fighting all of it.’

32-year-old Lauren Neidigh, based in Florida, is employed in assisting psychology patients with the processing of their health insurance reimbursements.

During her free hours, she shares video content related to the court documents from the sexual harassment and defamation lawsuit filed against Lively-Baldoni on a relatively small YouTube channel that has approximately 20,000 subscribers.

When she received the notice, she couldn’t believe it.

Upon receiving the email, she expressed her astonishment, sharing with DailyMail.com that she sought advice from some legal acquaintances. In essence, she was left wondering how to proceed in light of the situation.

After confirming that it’s genuine and not a hoax, I plan on filing a motion to dismiss and handling the matter personally.

The subpoenas for Google were sent to the YouTube creators through their email connected to their Google account, with the legal communication originating from Esra Hudson of Lively’s law firm, Manatt Phelps & Phillips.

But Signore said he was then told by Manatt’s firm that the requests were not real.

According to Signore in his YouTube video, he mentioned that he had communicated with the legal team representing Blake Lively. He further added that we (presumably himself or his team) contacted Esra’s office, and they denied the information we received as false on two occasions.

‘This is so damn shady.

In a conversation with DailyMail.com, he expressed his strong anger towards Blake Lively and her legal team due to the Google subpoena they received.

Neidigh expressed uncertainty, saying, ‘There was a lot of doubt about whether this was an authentic alert. I wasn’t sure if I had to take any action, or what steps I should take in response.’

Lively’s lawyer, Esra Hudson, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

On July 11th, Google support responded to Signore’s posts regarding X, verifying that the message he got through his Google account was authentic and dispatched in accordance with their user notification policy concerning legal issues.

Upon reading, I found certain parts seemed illogical. However, as I continued, the subsequent sections helped me piece together a clearer understanding.

A 26-page summons requires Google to disclose details about 16 YouTube users by July 16, 5 PM. The document states that this action is ordered or directed towards Google.

The request is for comprehensive information about a YouTube subscriber linked to both YouTube and Google Pay. This includes details such as:

* First and last name
* Registered email address(es)
* Phone numbers
* Physical address
* Backup/recovery email address or phone number
* Subscription registration details
* Length of service (start date and any premium services used)
* Payment method and source for these services (like credit card numbers, bank account details, or public blockchain data and addresses)
* Initial login Internet Protocol (IP) address
* IP address from May 1, 2024 to the present, with dates and session times
* Video upload IP addresses.

According to Neidigh, she believes that Lively suspects Baldoni may be orchestrating a conspiracy by compensating content creators to tarnish the reputation of the actress.

She suggested that perhaps she believes her critics might suspect a conflict of interest or undisclosed benefits, as they think the ongoing negative campaign against her serves to disguise this. This was her explanation for her statement.

What you said is completely false. In fact, I used to enjoy her films and did watch Gossip Girl. As for Ryan Reynolds, I’m a fan of his movies too. So, I approached this topic with an open mind.

Upon reading, I found some parts seemed illogical. However, it was when I moved on to subsequent sections that things began to fall into place for me.

‘So, there’s never been an incentive for me other than I’m interested in her lawsuit.’

Signore said he believes Lively has a further motive to get information from him.

In addition to covering stories for Popcorned Planet, I’m also working on a documentary titled ‘It Ends With Justice’. For this project, I’ve been in contact with several anonymous team members from IEWU. This is what he stated.

The team members felt revolted by the statements Blake made regarding the production in the media, and they wished to voice their perspective. However, they were petrified of being shunned by Ryan, CAA, and others for speaking up.

It seems that these individuals showed up without revealing their true selves, wearing unclear attire and facial coverings for privacy. I suspect Blake and Ryan are interested in the information they possess. However, I am committed to safeguarding the confidentiality of my sources.

As a die-hard fan, I must confess that this device sends chills down my spine. There’s something enigmatic about them that makes me uneasy. It’s as if they’re playing an intricate game, and we’re the pieces on their board. Frankly, their antics are unsettling, and I can’t help but wonder just how far they’ll go to rattle us.

A Norwegian entertainment journalist named Kjersti Flaa had earlier been associated with rumors of a malicious smear tactic against Lively, allegedly masterminded by Baldoni.

In a New York Times article from December, it’s mentioned that Flaa had an interview with Lively, and there were allegations of negative publicity that appeared to have been deliberately spread or intensified by Baldoni’s representatives.

In simpler terms, Flaa stated to the Hollywood Reporter that neither his team nor hers reached out to him, and her fall from popularity was due to her own actions in the video which caused negative reactions among online viewers.

Flaa and fellow content creator Katie Joy, who boasts a YouTube following of 440,000 on her channel “Without A Crystal Ball,” have expressed their willingness to assist smaller creators in dealing with a subpoena.

In my post on Instagram, I expressed that we’re united in facing this subpoena. Having Kjersti and myself with attorneys working on our common cause, I believe that by joining forces, we can accomplish more than individually. We’re aiming to not only help some of the smaller creators save money but also demonstrate to the court that we are genuine individuals, not paid bots or journalists working for Baldoni.

A lesser-known content creator, SophieUnsual, alleged that Lively was bullying or targeting someone below their status by involving them in a request, which is often referred to as ‘taking a swing at those less powerful.’

‘The financial lives of ordinary people are being affected due to Blake Lively’s legal issues, and it’s unfairly targeting her personally.’

Neidigh expressed her opinion that the subpoena could cause a dampening effect on independent content creators reporting on this specific case.

Beginning to target individuals for expressing their thoughts on their personal platforms may discourage others from doing the same, as they fear potential repercussions.

‘That fear is by design, to keep people silent.

‘It’s a little intimidating. But I want to stick up for myself in this way.’

She mentioned that she believes the subpoena issued to Lively might be a form of retribution for the harsh comments Neidigh made against the actress in her videos, which included referring to her as a “vulgar term.

‘It feels like revenge to me,’ she said.

Another contacted content creator, ‘ExistingToThrive’, posted a video on TikTok slamming Lively.

‘The whole idea that this is all misogyny,’ she said. ‘We don’t hate women. We just hate Blake.’

According to reports, Owens, Hilton, and Signore were allegedly faced with more detailed requests compared to lesser creators. They were asked to share all their correspondence related to Baldoni or his fellow defendants in the lawsuit filed by Lively.

Owens and Signore say they have been served directly with these more extensive subpoenas.

However, on Monday, Hilton mentioned during his podcast that no legal demands have been served on him so far, contradicting TMZ’s claim that Lively intends to subpoena him in the ongoing proceedings.

In response to receiving the subpoena, Owens shared a video with her 4.4 million followers, expressing her excitement and appreciation at being served with the court order.

‘It feels like a graduation ceremony of sorts for me and all of my podcast listeners,’ she said.

‘This is meant to be a hit. It’s supposed to make us look bad.

I don’t know at all why I’ve been summoned, because I had no relationship with any of these parties when they initially filed their lawsuits.

Owen expressed frustration that it seemed like the news about her receiving a subpoena was shared with TMZ prior to her actually getting the official legal document.

Neidigh said she will be filing a motion to quash on her own, without a lawyer representing her.

YouTube personality Zack Peter, well-known for his extensive coverage of the Lively case, criticized her for serving a subpoena, yet expressed bewilderment as to why he wasn’t served one himself.

He believes Blake may be attempting to intimidate creators into silence, but fortunately, he isn’t easily intimidated himself.

Ready for any legal documents, as I am utterly committed to pursuing this matter to its conclusion. I won’t back down or give up until we reach the end of this story.

It seems to me that Blake Lively is carefully examining the circumstances surrounding Amber Heard’s case, and as a result, she appears to be taking all necessary precautions to safeguard herself. One aspect of this strategy involves making those reporting on the case feel apprehensive or uneasy.

‘However, unlike in Hollywood, she doesn’t hold any sway over us. She can’t intimidate us. Instead, we support one another wholeheartedly and watch each other’s backs. It’s not about supporting Baldoni; it’s about standing up for what is right.’

Read More

2025-07-17 02:25

Previous post Talos and Coin Metrics Join Forces in $100M+ Deal: A Match Made in Crypto Heaven!
Next post Jack Lowden to lead “gruesome” new crime drama – here’s what you need to know