- If any consultant planted a story asserting Lively lied about harassment, while internally acknowledging uncertainty or contrary evidence, that could satisfy reckless disregard underHarte-Hanks. Justia Law
- If the plan relied on implication (weaving true facts to insinuate a false narrative of bad faith), New York’s implication standard can still make it actionable—again, only with proof of actual malice. Abrams Fensterman, LLP
- If a consultant simply flagged existing third-party chatter (e.g., a general-interest thread about Hailey Bieber) as an example of a tactic—without publishing any false claim about Lively—that is likely insufficient for defamation liability.
The litigation backdrop
In June 2025, Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed Baldoni’s $400 million countersuit against Lively, Reynolds, and others; However, Lively’s claims continue. The dismissal itself does not answer the PR-liability question—it just means Baldoni’s counter-claims did not move forward. But the court filings that emerged in that process are now part of the public record, and they frame the stakes for any future claims targeting the crisis-communications tactics.
🛑 It should be noted that the assertions in Lively’s lawsuit are merely allegations and have not been proven in a court of law.
