FOLLOW US

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.

What the records show—and why it matters

Baldoni’s crisis consultants flagged Swift’s fans as a risk vector, justified a fee hike, and explored redirecting speculation toward actors who had previously worked with Lively (Ben Affleck, Leighton Meester, Anna Kendrick). One text cited in coverage references an X thread about “Hailey Bieber’s history of bullying women,” which a message allegedly called “what we would need.” If accurate, those documents reflect a sophisticated social-media war room—not unusual in Hollywood controversies—but they also raise legal exposure if any seeded messages conveyed false statements of fact about Lively.

The PR firm’s potential touchpoints for liability

TAG PR (The Agency Group PR), run by Melissa Nathan, and Street Relations Inc., led by Jed Wallace, as Baldoni’s crisis PR firms.

1) Defamation via authorship or republication. At common law, anyone who repeats a defamatory statement can be as liable as the original speaker—the “republication rule.” If a crisis team drafts, places, or meaningfully induces content that asserts false facts “of and concerning” Lively, that satisfies publication.

2) Defamation by implication; false light. Even literally true sentences can be actionable if they create a false implication that a reasonable reader would draw (e.g., stitching facts to suggest Lively fabricated allegations). New York recognizes implication claims; many jurisdictions also recognize the sister privacy tort, “false light,” which—like defamation of a public figure—requires actual malice. Abrams Fensterman, LLP Barclay Damon Tom W. Bell

3) Civil conspiracy / concert of action. A PR vendor can face liability if it knowingly agrees to and participates in an underlying tort (e.g., defamation), though standards vary by state and courts police these claims carefully. Minc LawJimerson Birr

4) Tortious interference. If planted stories intentionally and wrongfully interfered with contracts or business expectancy (think brand deals tied to reputation), plaintiffs sometimes plead interference claims alongside defamation. (Elements and defenses are state-specific; anti-SLAPP laws can still apply where claims target speech on public issues.) Reporters CommitteeNYSenate.gov