If you are interested in the latest and perhaps one of the greatest stories of how branding meets social media meets litigation communications, keep reading.
The day Blake Lively insisted on bringing her lawyers in to lay out the conditions upon which she would continue filming It Ends with Us, the world of litigation changed. She was demanding, essentially, an end to sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct on the set, among other requirements. What followed was a cascading avalanche of court filings between the two parties, which still goes on.
Central to Lively’s claims are allegations of a smear PR and social media campaign against her, engineered by Baldoni’s team. Using social media isn’t new in public disputes of various kinds, but this application of the medium was a crossing of the Rubicon in both communications strategy and tactics, and in high-profile litigation involving notable public figures. It is worth looking at the lessons.
Social Media x Influencers: An Untraceable Campaign
Arguably, in the past, it wasn’t difficult to find the source of media coverage creating alleged reputational harm. Today’s social media environment flips that on its head. The initial source of a post, hashtag, and the origin of a story can be difficult to pinpoint – the more time passes, the more difficult it is. There is monitoring software that captures mentions and share of voice in the media, which also does social listening, but consolidating various sources and types of content across all platforms can be a herculean task. Presumably, the new generation of AI-driven monitoring systems will ultimately make that task easier.
For those up for the challenge and looking for some clarity, the following questions arise, some of which are impossible to answer.
Who is who?
- Who posted the first hashtag that generated a movement and went viral?
- Who is an authentic user vs. a robo account?
What is what?
- How many reactions or comments are organic vs. created by robo accounts?
- What content is paid vs. organic?
- What content is authentic vs. AI-generated?
What’s the motivation?
- Is this an influencer hired for a campaign or “just” an individual expressing their opinion with a large following?
- Where did the sentiment originate – on social media or a news organization?
All of these lead to a single question – what and where is the truth?
When Lively’s accusations became public, it was alleged that Baldoni and the film’s producer, Jamey Heath, went on the offensive to wage a smear campaign against her. It was said that the campaign would involve hiring communications professionals to orchestrate “full social account take downs,” by starting “threads of theories” and making a concerted effort to from Lively being a victim to an unlikeable, insensitive diva, according to Lively’s complaint with the California Civil Rights Department. A digital strategy was supposedly initiated by Baldoni’s PR team that would be untraceable, using tactics such as:
- CONTENT: Creating, seeding, and promoting content that appears to be authentic on social media platforms and internet chat forums
- MEDIA: Feeding ideas to reporters and then making their content go viral to influence public opinion and thereby cause an organic pile-on (“astroturfing”)
- CONTRAST: Engaging in the same techniques to bolster Baldoni’s credibility and suppress any negative content about him
After the movie’s release in August of 2024, negative stories and posts began to surface on social media about how difficult it was to work with Lively, how she wrestled for creative control, and how her film promotions were “tone-deaf”, while Baldoni remained largely unscathed.
Lively claims the smear campaign initiated by Baldoni’s team caused mental, physical, professional, and financial harm. Her hair-care products saw a sharp decline in sales, and she felt she had to turn down acting and directing roles as a result of feeling harassed. She is still fearful of further attacks on herself, her family, and her colleagues.
When Lively filed her first complaint on December 21, Baldoni was dropped by his talent agency, WME, on the same day. Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, are also clients of WME. Two days later, The New York Times published “We Can Bury Anyone,” which detailed the alleged campaign by Baldoni’s publicists to tarnish Lively’s reputation.
(This is not the first time we have seen the far-reaching impact of personal conduct on businesses and their brands: Ellen DeGeneres, Tiger Woods, Kanye West, and Lori Loughlin suffered reputational damage that led to the dissolution of their partnerships with major brands such as Bed Bath & Beyond, AT&T, Adidas, and Hallmark).
Mission (im)possible – Looking for the Source
From where things stand right now, it is important to determine what content was amplified by Baldoni’s team and what was a result of public engagement. Baldoni and his team claim no smear campaign was ever initiated, although they don’t deny they were planning one.
If you can’t get to the source of the smear campaign, can you really discredit it? Here’s what to do next.
When Old Content Becomes New
Much of what negatively altered public perceptions about Lively was content from years ago, including a video from 2016 where she almost completely ignored the interviewer because she was asked about her pregnancy. The video was posted on August 10, 2024, one day after the movie premiered, and now has over six million views.
On YouTube, a disproportionate number of negative videos about Lively were also posted in August of 2024, some of which blended old interviews with current ones, blurring the line between the past and present.
Throwing Litigation into the Mix
Lively and Baldoni are now embroiled in a full-on legal and public relations battle. It permeated through their own public relations teams, with the possibility of Lively’s friend Taylor Swift being deposed at the trial set for March 2026 (she was present during the film’s creative negotiations).
- Lively is suing Baldoni for alleged sexual harassment, retaliation, breach of contract, infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and lost wages for an unspecified amount
- Her amended complaint on February 18 includes allegations that Baldoni’s behavior made two other female cast members uncomfortable, and that their concerns were documented by the movie studio
- Baldoni is countersuing Lively and Reynolds, and their publicist, alleging extortion, defamation, and invasion of privacy for $400 million
- Baldoni’s publicists, Jen Abel and Melissa Nathan, previously joined a similar defamation complaint against Lively and others
- Stephanie Jones, one of Baldoni’s former publicists, is suing Abel and Nathan, alleging they conspired to harm Jones and her company, Jonesworks, while orchestrating a smear campaign against Lively
- Jed Wallace, the head of a crisis mitigation firm hired by Baldoni’s PR team, is seeking a declaratory judgment absolving him of liability in the matter, as well as damages for defamation from Lively, including at least $6 million in punitive damages
- Baldoni has also sued The New York Times for $250 million for libel, false light invasion of privacy, promissory fraud, and breach of implied-in-fact contract
Every one of these lawsuits—except for Lively’s—is centered around public smearing and attempted defamation. Neither Lively nor Reynolds have publicly commented on the litigation. Baldoni has vehemently denied Lively’s claims and created a website with 392 pages of his own evidence in an attempt to disprove her accusations.
These cases highlight the necessity of specialized expertise in litigation communications, as statements made in court filings can significantly impact reputations. Given the high stakes, litigation communications should be handled as a crisis, requiring strategic messaging to protect credibility while navigating the legal process.
The Past Won’t Go Anywhere
Public perception is becoming increasingly less about hard facts, raw data, and fact-checked articles from reputable sources, and more influenced by the dominating narrative you are able to orchestrate through far-reaching paid, earned, and owned media channels, and as soon as possible. We are in a world today where a mere meme can speak a thousand words. We’ve seen this play out in politics, sports, entertainment, and in the business world. It can often be accomplished by using an individual’s own content against them to reinforce a desired narrative.
What can you do before your past becomes your present in a way that could cause reputational damage?
- Conduct an SEO and social media audit.
- Set up media monitoring and create reports that assess negative v. positive v. neutral tonality. Compare and contrast.
- Understand the mix of narratives being used to advance the “main narrative.”
- Predict what other negative narratives may surface next, and plan for them.
- Create a crisis plan and a communications strategy.
- Conduct a litigation communications assessment and ensure that your communications advisor is aligned with the law firm representing you, and that the lawyer is experienced in media law. The expertise of each should dovetail seamlessly.
Source:
Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, Baldoni, Heath, Sarowitz, It Ends with Us Movie LLC, Nathan, The Agency Group PR LLC, Abel, Wallace, Street Relations Inc., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:24-cv-10049-LJL (filed Feb. 18, 2025).