Case Intel
- Court filings describe a crisis-PR plan that allegedly contemplated “planting stories,” fee hikes tied to fear of Taylor Swift’s fanbase, and steering press toward alternative targets.
- A judge dismissed Justin Baldoni’s $400M countersuit against Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds; Lively’s claims continue, keeping the PR strategy under scrutiny.
- Whether the PR firm can be liable turns on classic defamation rules: the republication doctrine, false-light/implication theories, and—because Lively is a public figure—the demanding “actual malice” standard.
By Samuel Lopez – USA Herald
The legal battle surrounding It Ends With Us no longer centers on a film set. It now raises a modern question with old-school First Amendment bones: If a crisis-PR shop helps devise and distribute narratives that harm a public figure’s reputation, can that team be sued—and could a plaintiff clear the high “actual malice” bar? Newly surfaced emails and planning decks, reported from court exhibits, show a PR playbook that discussed “scenario planning,” seeding narratives about the “weaponization of feminism,” and even increasing billing to $30,000 per month out of concern that Blake Lively might “activate” Taylor Swift’s fanbase.
