Why “actual malice” is the mountain to climb
Because Lively is a public figure, she must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the PR team knew a statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth (a high bar set by New York Times v. Sullivan and refined in cases like St. Amant and Harte-Hanks). Mere negligence, bias, or aggressive spin is not enough.
Evidence that defendants doubted their claims, ignored obvious red flags, or purposefully avoided verification can support actual malice; courts look for contemporaneous emails, notes, or testimony showing awareness of probable falsity. NYSenate.gov Justia Law
In New York (where part of this litigation has unfolded), the 2020 anti-SLAPP amendments go further: for claims “in connection with an issue of public interest,” actual malice must be shown to recover damages, and courts apply an early, speech-protective review. That framework makes a plaintiff’s evidentiary burden heavier against PR defendants whose conduct is fundamentally communicative. Reporters Committee New York State Unified Court System
