June 11, 2025 • 29 mins
A $400 million defamation lawsuit, a full dismissal from a federal judge, and reputations still in question. This week, we’re breaking down the legal loss—and PR fallout—of It Ends With Us director Justin Baldoni’s case against Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds, and their team. Spoiler: no one comes out clean.
This episode goes beyond the legal headline to unpack what really happens when public figures weaponize defamation law to manage backlash. We cover:
- Why most defamation suits fail
- What the law protects—and what it doesn’t
- The reputational risks of suing to “fix” a story
- And what Blake Lively’s post-verdict statement didn’t say out loud
If you’ve ever asked, “Should I sue for defamation?”—this episode is your answer. (And I’ve got a resource for you if you’re still not sure.)
Mentioned in the episode:
- Should You Sue for Defamation? (Fillable Decision Tree for paid subscribers): PRBreakdown.Media
- Social Media Hints At Reasons Behind 'It Ends With Us' Cast Rift, Forbes.com (Aug. 12, 2024) Molly McPherson
The media tool I use to track stories, monitor coverage, and help clients get their message in the right hands. Click here to learn more.
Want More Behind the Breakdown?
Follow The PR Breakdown with Molly McPherson on Substack for early access to podcast episodes, exclusive member chats, weekly lives, and monthly workshops that go deeper than the mic. It's the insider’s hub for communicators who want strategy with spine—and a little side-eye where it counts.
Follow Molly → @MollyMcPherson
Subscribe to PR Breakdown on Substack → prbreakdown.media
Need a Keynote Speaker? Drawing from real-world PR battles, Molly delivers the same engaging stories and hard-won crisis insights from the podcast to your live audience. Click here to book Molly for your next meeting.
This podcast is supported by Muck Rack, the PR management platform I use to monitor media coverage, track journalist activity, and inform high-stakes strategy with real-time data. Click here to try Muck Rack for yourself.
Follow & Connect with Molly:
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Molly McPherson (00:00):
You've likely heard the headlines.
News (00:03):
Breaking news a federal judge in New York dismisses
Justin Baldoni's lawsuit againstBlake Lively.
Now it ends with us.
Director and star filed that400 million dollar lawsuit
against Lively, her husband,ryan Reynolds and their
publicist, alleging extortionand defamation.
Lively's attorneys just said ina statement today's opinion is
(00:23):
a total victory and a completevindication for Blake Lively,
along with those that JustinBaldoni and the Wayfarer parties
dragged into their retaliatorylawsuit, including Ryan Reynolds
.
Molly McPherson (00:33):
Yes, a judge threw out a $400 million
defamation lawsuit filed byactor and director Justin
Baldoni.
The defendants, of course,blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds,
the New York Times, even herpublicist.
The ruling a total dismissal.
Every defamation claim gone.
But this podcast is going toshare with you a thought not to
(00:57):
get completely distracted by thelegal headline.
But, as your friendlyneighborhood crisis manager, I'm
(01:29):
going to tell you not to getdistracted by the legal headline
.
This wasn't just a court caseand a court ruling.
This was a reputational chessmove and the court happened to
call checkmate on Baldoni.
But who really won or lost thegame?
Let's talk about weaponizingdefamation and what this win for
Lively and is it a win stillwon't fix anyone involved.
Hey there, welcome to the PRBreakdown.
I'm your host, molly McPherson,and each week I like to break
down the headlines we see andpull out a PR slash life lesson
about the importance ofcommunication.
In this episode let's talkabout what happens when people
(01:51):
weaponize defamation law as acrisis response tactic.
Heads up, it rarely ends well,especially in the digital age
where truth travels so quicklyand privilege protections travel
even faster.
I know so many people aretalking about the legal headline
(02:12):
, but I still want to focus onthe PR headline or the subhead.
I want to look at what happenswhen legal action and PR
strategy get tangled and whydefamation claims, especially
from public figures, almostalways end up making things
worse.
Now, if you're a public-facingperson either in politics,
(02:34):
publicity, an influencer, you'reonline, a local business owner,
you're someone whose reputationcould cost you if you lose it,
and you've asked in the past oryou think you may ask in the
future should I sue fordefamation?
This is your episode and at theend of this episode I am going
to give you a resource that youcan use over and over again.
(02:56):
But more on that later.
Let's start with the facts ofthe case.
Let's just start with somebasic facts.
I'm not going to spend too muchtime here because you've all
heard about the story.
Justin Baldoni accused BlakeLively, her husband Ryan
Reynolds and others ofconspiring to destroy his
reputation through falseallegations of sexual harassment
and retaliation.
(03:17):
He filed the suit after Livelymade formal complaints to the
California Civil RightsDepartment and later filed a
federal lawsuit in New Yorkexpanding on her claims from
last December.
In response, baldoni sued fordefamation, but this week the
court ruled that Lively'sstatements were protected by
(03:38):
litigation privilege.
Reynolds also protected.
He relied on Lively's versionof events.
The New York Times alsoprotected under the fair report
privilege.
This wasn't just a legalcounterpunch, it was an effort
(04:06):
to claw back control of anarrative that had already gone
public.
Who am I talking about?
Well, both parties, blakeLively and Justin Baldoni.
There's a lot of legalmaneuvers going back and forth
and that happens a lot in thesehigh-profile cases.
Lot in these high-profile cases.
(04:27):
Now, if you've been followingthis story, you know that it
starts last August at therelease of the movie it Ends
With Us, which alsosimultaneously released with
Ryan Reynolds' Deadpool movie.
The duo's dual movie releaseshould have been a big moment
for the couple, a bigreputational moment for this
A-list couple, but it wasn't.
(04:47):
It went south spectacularly.
Both premieres were delayed dueto the writer's strike, so they
both happened to sync togetherin August.
August typically is a newsdesert of a month, but it also
gives opportunity for events tohappen because there isn't
competition with other storiesout there, other premieres.
So it actually worked out intheir favor.
(05:09):
But what did not work in theirfavor was the negative sentiment
.
There was a lot of negativebuzz around the movie because
there were a lot of negativewhispers behind the scenes.
I'm not going to go too deepinto those.
There is plenty of internetcontent for you to untangle.
I mentioned that I wrote anarticle for Forbes as a
(05:30):
contributor back then,highlighting the social media
crisis of it all.
I noticed right away thatthings were not going well for
Blake Lively and I was alsospotting what they were doing
with the press.
There were a lot of, and I wasalso spotting what they were
doing with the press.
There were a lot of strategictitles in People magazine.
There was something afoot.
No one knew exactly what wasgoing on until December late
(05:54):
December 2024, when Lively filedthe civil complaint and it
swept up Baldoni.
She accused him, her co-starand director on it Ends With Us
of sexual harassment and acoordinated smear campaign.
Her team subpoenaed phonerecords from Baldoni, his
publicist, a producer and evenhis crisis manager, spanning
(06:15):
more than two years ofcommunication.
Now some of that data hadalready surfaced in filings.
There is speculation that a PRprofessional, stephanie Jones,
accessed one of those phones andhanded key messages to Lively's
team.
I think that's a verybelievable narrative and, even
though that part hasn't beenconfirmed in court, it is a part
(06:38):
of the broader narrative andone that I personally find
believable.
Bottom line.
Lively went public with veryserious claims and she had
receipts to back them up.
Baldoni was effectivelycanceled within 48 hours of this
complaint being filed.
Because it also happened tosync with a big story in the New
(07:03):
York Times, that really putBaldoni in a bad light.
He was dropped from his agency,the one he shares with Lively
and Reynolds.
The awards were being rescinded.
Some people were coming outonline in support of Lively, but
I think at the time most peopledid not know what to make of it
.
I had my opinions.
I've linked all of the contentthat I've made about this case
(07:27):
since last October so you canrefer to them in the show notes.
Also, you.
The act of defiance, I believe,reframed him Not as someone
(07:49):
who's guilty and retreating butas someone who is willing to
push back In crisis.
Pr friction matters If yourname is already being dismantled
step by step in the headlines.
Filing a suit, even a losing one, can slow the narrative down.
That's what Baldoni gained byputting his story out there at a
(08:13):
time when Lively was attackinghim.
It started the content and thecommentary and there was
overwhelming commentary favoringBaldoni.
I think he lost a lot oftraction from a PR perspective
this week, but I think a lot ofthat goodwill remains.
(08:35):
Now what it means for all threeof the players.
Let's just talk about thereputational impact for everyone
involved.
Blake Lively and Ryan Reynoldswell, they had a win in court,
but this was no clean win.
The accusations, the lawsuits,the subpoenas none of that
disappears with a ruling.
The story's already out and thecourt ruling doesn't erase the
(08:56):
public's memory.
They've regained momentum?
Yes, definitely, but the shineis dulled.
People have already made uptheir minds.
There may be some people whomaybe think less negatively
about Reynolds and Lively, but Iwould be hard-pressed to find a
lot of people out there atleast content creators who are
(09:19):
going to come out and say, whoa,I was 100% wrong about Blake
Lively and Ryan Reynolds.
Oh man, it was all about JustinBaldoni.
If you find those people, letme know, because I want to find
those people, because I wouldlove to see what they have to
say.
I think most people are goingto keep their minds in the same
place, where it was initiallyeither in August or definitely
(09:41):
in December, for Lively andReynolds.
They are a couple known forbrand management and likability,
but this whole ordeal left amark.
How likable can you be whenyou're dropping stories in the
press against a person?
How likable are you whenBaldoni is stuck in the basement
during a premiere?
How likable are you when all ofthese stories come out about
(10:03):
you and how you treat people andthey're starting to get a lot
of traction online?
How likable are you when youhave to resort to so much PR
strategy to get your story outthere?
Now, as for Baldoni, he lostthe suit, but he showed he
wasn't going to let a story bewritten about him without a
response.
That alone, in the world ofreputation management, can
(10:26):
matter.
If Lively made a strategic moveto go public, baldoni made a
strategic move to push back.
It didn't work out in court forhim, but it does complicate the
narrative and sometimescomplexity is all.
A public figure needs to stopthe freefall.
Okay, I'm going to break in herebecause at the time of this
recording, blake Lively justposted to Instagram.
(10:48):
I'm reading from her stories,so it's not in her main
Instagram feed or grid, it's inher stories.
Last week, I stood proudlyalongside 19 organizations
united in defending women'srights to speak up for their
safety.
Like so many others, I felt thepain of a retaliatory lawsuit,
including the manufactured shamethat tries to break us.
(11:09):
While the suit against me wasdefeated, so many don't have the
resources to fight back.
I'm more resolved than ever tocontinue to stand for every
woman's right to have a voice inprotecting themselves,
including their safety, theirintegrity, their dignity and
their story.
There are protections out there.
Check out some of theincredible organizations below
for resources and information.
With love and gratitude for themany who stood by me many of
(11:32):
you I know, many of you I don't,but I will never stop
appreciating or advocating foryou.
B and then she has a link tothese associations.
I'm going to say this right offthe bat she did not write this,
and the reason why I can tellis because, to say this right
off the bat, she did not writethis, and the reason why I can
tell is because there are twospaces after the period, and she
(11:54):
doesn't do that in a lot of herposts.
That's something that's usuallythe hallmark of someone who's
older, so her publicist, leslieSloan, probably wrote this for
her.
However, the message is astrong one, and one that she
likely obviously believes in.
It's a good statement.
This is good PR.
This is good PR.
Without naming Justin Baldoni.
She found another way to labelhim as someone who manufactured
(12:19):
a campaign against her.
It's interesting.
It's a smart PR move, there'sno doubt about that.
But the question is do webelieve it?
This is PR.
She could feel this way.
I mean, who wouldn't feel thisway about safety?
It's a good statement and everyfemale actress, I think every
female and I think many peopleof all genders would agree with
(12:41):
this and agree with that feelingthat every woman will.
Really every person has a rightto have their voice and
protecting themselves.
That includes their safety andtheir integrity and their
dignity and their story.
It's a human right, not just awoman's right, but it's a human
right.
But this is just my personalopinion here.
I still think they did the samething to Justin Baldoni.
I really do.
(13:01):
Now, it's not to absolve JustinBaldoni from everything that
happened on the set.
Nobody knows truly whathappened from the set, but we
cannot omit the Lively Reynoldsfactor of what they did to
Baldoni.
There were other ways to managethis.
They are the ones who startedthe legal proceedings and this
is why, when you go legal, it isalways almost always a PR
(13:27):
disaster.
Let's look at defamationlawsuits and why they fail and
why they fail so often.
Let's pause here for a quicklook at defamation An important
clarification because a lot oflegal terms get tossed around
online, especially when tensionsare high in a PR reputation
(13:50):
crisis.
But this is an area that comesup in my work all the time,
perhaps not at a lively Baldonilevel, but I have dealt with
numerous, numerous clients whocome to me because of legal
issues that they are currentlyin or they want to make and they
need my advice and they need myadvice for how to manage it.
(14:13):
So, if you're someone in theonline space, if you're an
influencer, if you're a name, ifyou're someone in the public
space, let's talk about thisbecause it's important.
Here's what you need to know.
Defamation 101.
Defamation is the umbrella term.
It means someone made a falsestatement about you, presented
it as fact, shared it withsomeone else and it hurt your
(14:36):
reputation.
For all my journalism majorsout there, let's go back in time
.
Let's go back to college.
New York Times versus Sullivanin 1964.
Did you get this correct inyour journalism ethics course in
college?
Get this correct in yourjournalism ethics course in
college.
It was a landmark US SupremeCourt case establishing the
quote actual malice standard fordefamation suits involving
(15:01):
public officials.
The court ruled that publicofficials must prove that false
statements were made importantwith knowledge of their falsity
or with reckless disregard forthe truth.
So this court case expandedpress protections.
Why that matters is becausethere's a lot of court cases
against the press.
(15:21):
Now I know what you're thinking, but Molly Baldoni versus
Lively isn't about the press.
Well, it was, if you rememberwhat's getting lost in the
headlines.
The New York Times was alsoinvolved.
So maybe now in journalismethics courses they may ask the
question about New York Timesversus Beltone.
Not likely, but they'll bediscussing it ad nauseum on
(15:43):
TikTok and social media.
But let's just talk aboutdefamation in general, because
this term does get tossed arounda lot and when you think of
people in the public eye, it'susually against a press outfit
as opposed to another person.
But in my world crisismanagement, so often people come
to me because they want to filedefamation cases against people
(16:07):
saying things about them, andit becomes my job to listen to
them then explain what it takesto win a defamation case.
So I'll share this.
You generally have to provefour things.
One, the statement was false.
Two, it was communicated to athird party.
Three, the person who said itwas at least negligent.
(16:30):
And four, it caused real harmto your reputation.
That number four is a trickyone.
You have to prove that itcaused real harm to your
reputation.
You cannot place a dollaramount on your feelings that
they were hurt or that someonesaid something bad about you and
(16:52):
now you're pissed off, which isusually the reason why people
bring up legal with me, becausesomeone said something and they
want to do something about it.
And they want to go legalbecause they think that is the
more powerful punch that you canmake against someone.
And I happen to think that thisBaldoni lawsuit, even though he
(17:12):
lost it, was tossed right now.
I think it caused a lot moredamage.
Now let's revisit your collegejournalism ethics quiz, where
you had to explain thedifference between libel and
slander.
I'm going to share with you mymnemonic, my memory hack, to
remember the difference betweenlibel and slander, and this goes
(17:33):
back to my freshman year ofcollege.
I've never forgotten this.
When you think of libel, thefirst three letters of libel is
L-I-B, the same three lettersthat spell library.
Libraries have written andpublished material, but it goes
beyond a library.
But think articles, socialposts, emails, even images.
(17:56):
If it's fixed in some permanentform it's liable.
And when public figures sue forlibel they have to meet a
higher bar.
They must prove actual malice,that the person knew it was
false or didn't care whether itwas true.
This is the whole piece aboutRyan Reynolds.
It's very, very hard to provewhat Ryan Reynolds was doing.
(18:18):
You know it's very difficultfor Baldoni to prove that Ryan
Reynolds was doing this to him.
Now, slander here is yourmemory aid.
Slender is a statement that'sspoken.
Slander begins with s and it'salso a damaging statement that's
said out loud to someone elsethat causes harm.
(18:40):
Unlike libel, slander usuallyrequires proof of actual harm.
Hurt feelings don't count.
You have to show.
It costs you something your job, your clients, your credibility
, ticket sales, reputation,getting jobs.
Again, you have to prove it.
Now, another legal maneuver thatcomes up a lot in my work is a
(19:01):
cease and desist.
Usually, when someone brings uplawyers with me or a legal
maneuver, they always bring up acease and desist and they can
take on two forms.
There's a cease and desistletter and it's just that a
letter.
It demands that someone stop acertain behavior or statements,
and the reason why I tell peoplenot to do it, I think 100% of
(19:21):
the time is because it's notlegally binding.
It does put the other person onnotice, but it also pisses them
off and they turn it into ajoke.
If someone wants to send acease and desist letter in my
world, what I tell them whatwill happen is you will be
mocked because of that letter,because it's not legally binding
.
There's nothing that they cando with it at all.
(19:42):
It's maybe you could.
You could look at it as a firstshot across the bow in a
reputational dispute.
It shows that you'll go legalon something, but 100% of the
time I've told clients don'teven bother.
Now there is a cease and desistorder On the other hand, that's
(20:02):
going to come from a court oragency and that one is legally
binding and must be obeyed.
Now I had a client recentlywhere a cease and desist order
worked because the other persondid say things that were false.
They posted things that werefalse and they were reckless and
they were proven to be false.
(20:23):
So it was very easy to put anorder out there to say you have
to remove everything.
But the bottom line is this.
If you are in a PR mess andyou're thinking about legal
action or you're beingthreatened with it, it is
helpful to know the differencebetween a headline, a letter, a
comment and a lawsuit.
What I typically tell people isif emotion is driving your
(20:46):
legal decision, take a breath,pause and think it out, because
it's usually the wrong course,which I tell them honestly 99%
of the time.
Anyone who works with me andlegal is added to the chat they
often get a big pushback from mebecause legal, in my opinion,
(21:09):
only exacerbates a crisis.
It only makes it worse.
Only go to legal if there is areason, like a legal reason,
that you can show proof thatwhatever was said was malicious
and it was harmful and you weredamaged from it.
Otherwise, you're just going tomake things worse.
And when they come to me,that's when I start asking
(21:31):
questions Is the statementactually false or is it just
damaging?
Can you prove it was knowinglymalicious?
What do you really want?
Do you want a retraction?
Do you want them to chill?
Do you want control?
Do you want to push back?
I mean usually what it is?
It's a punch.
They want to hurt the otherperson as much as the person
hurt them and then I tell themare you prepared for discovery,
(21:55):
cross-examination and everymessage from your past to go
public?
That's something that BlakeLively is learning, particularly
when it relates to Taylor Swift, and now the Taylor Swift part
of her case got so messy as well.
But most of all, how will itlook when you sue someone for
speaking out?
Because if the accusation istied to negative commentary and
(22:18):
your first instinct is toretaliate through the courts,
you've already lost thereputation battle, even if you
win the legal one.
In the case of Blake Livelyhere she did the law may be on
your side, but public opinionrarely is.
Now let's zoom out a bit andtalk about some of the cases out
there.
What you're hearing from me isthat it is extremely hard to win
(22:40):
a defamation suit in the US.
That's why it's very likelythat Justin Baldoni knew from
the get-go, his lawyer knewFriedman knew from the get-go
that they weren't going to winthis case.
It's huge to win.
It's really, really difficultto win a defamation suit in the
US, especially if you're apublic figure.
Just ask Sarah Palin.
(23:07):
In 2017, palin sued the New YorkTimes over an editorial that
incorrectly linked her politicalaction committee to the 2011
mass shooting that woundedCongresswoman Gabby Giffords.
The Times later issued acorrection, but Palin claimed
the editorial defamed her andcaused her reputational harm.
The initial trial was in 2022,and the federal judge and the
jury both ruled in favor of theNew York Times.
(23:27):
They found that Palin had notproven actual malice.
However, it should be said,during jury deliberations, the
judge announced his intention todismiss the case and some
jurors reportedly learned ofthis before delivering their
verdict, raising concerns aboutthe process.
Palin appealed, arguing thatthe judge's actions and
exclusion of certain evidenceimproperly influenced the jury.
(23:49):
Then, in August 2024, thefederal appeals court agreed
ordering a new trial due toprocedural errors, and then the
retrial began in April 2025.
Now I assume that most peoplewere not following the Palin v
New York Times court case inApril 2025 at the level of a
Karen Reid trial, but they hadthe same arguments and Palin's
(24:13):
team claimed the Times willfullyignored the facts and the
verdict that came out that theNew York Times was not liable.
Welfare fraud scandal.
Sharp accused Brett Favre ofstealing of quote stealing from
the poor.
Brett Favre called itdefamatory and the court
(24:43):
disagreed and it was dismissedin 2023.
But some people do win JohnnyDepp versus Amber Heard in 2022.
Depp sued Heard over a 2018Washington Post op-ed in which
she described herself as asurvivor of domestic abuse.
She didn't name Depp, but histeam argued the implication was
clear and damaging.
(25:05):
It became a television mediacircus and there was a lot of
accusations about manipulationwith bots.
The jury ultimately sided withDepp, awarding him $15 million
in damages.
That was later reduced, butHeard also won $2 million in a
counter suit.
There is Dominion Voting Systemsversus Fox News in 2023.
(25:25):
And this one wasn't just alegal win, it was a media
reckoning.
Dominion sued Fox News forrepeatedly airing false claims
that its voting machines riggedthe 2020 presidential election.
Dominion argued that Fox airedthese claims knowing they were
false.
So in April 2023, fox settledthe case for $787.5 million.
(25:47):
That's the largest publiclyknown defamation suit.
And then, lastly, we have E JeanCarroll versus Donald Trump.
The writer accused Donald Trumpof sexually assaulting her in
the 90s and sued him fordefamation after he publicly
denied allegations and attackedher credibility.
Jury found Trump liable forboth sexual abuse and defamation
, awarding Carroll $5 million,and in a second defamation trial
(26:10):
in 2024, she was awarded anadditional $83.3 million.
So there you have your examples.
But, bottom line, mostdefamation cases from public
figures don't end in vindication.
They end in exposure.
The people who win either bringoverwhelming proof and survive
(26:31):
public scrutiny, or they settlebefore the trial to stop the
bleeding.
For every Depp or Carroll,there's a Palin, a Favre, a
Lively.
You know someone who tried tosue their way out of a crisis,
only ended up deeper in it.
Yes, johnny Depp may have wonthat court case, but where is he
now?
(26:52):
It exposed too much and that'sthe pattern, and it's one that I
believe leaders andcommunicators need to recognize
early.
But also if you're someonewhose livelihood depends on
commentary't to cheerlead.
Your job is to assess risk.
Slow the panic.
Ask the question that I ask Areyou trying to win a case or
reclaim credibility?
File a lawsuit?
(27:40):
Your story stops being yours.
It becomes someone else'ssocial media post.
It becomes a content creator'sheyday, because they're going to
keep talking about it andyou're going to drag yourself
through a lot of negativecommentary.
It's true that Baldoni's name isnow tied to a failed $400
million lawsuit.
There are retaliationallegations and a judge's rebuke
.
That's not exactly brandbuilding, but he did fight back
(28:04):
and his story got out there.
Lively and Reynolds they wonthis round, but it's not a clean
reset.
The damage is done.
The story is unfolding, butLively and Reynolds story is
unfolding, but Lively andReynolds.
It would be impossible for themto ever come back to where they
were prior to August 2024.
(28:25):
The real takeaway here fromsomeone who does this for a
living don't use the legalsystem to fix a PR problem.
It's not a strategy, it's athreat, and threats don't build
trust.
If you're someone who isnavigating this space, either as
helping someone, whether you'reat an agency, whether you're
helping someone or you mightfind yourself in it.
(28:45):
I've created a fillabledecision tree.
It's one that you can use overand over again, titled Should
you Sue for Defamation.
It's available to paidsubscribers on my sub stack.
It's available to paidsubscribers on my sub stack.
You can find the link in theshow notes or just head on over
to prbreakdownmedia.
That's all for this week on thepodcast.
(29:08):
Thanks so much for listening.
Bye for now.
You've likely heard the headlines.
News (00:03):
Breaking news a federal judge in New York dismisses
Justin Baldoni's lawsuit againstBlake Lively.
Now it ends with us.
Director and star filed that400 million dollar lawsuit
against Lively, her husband,ryan Reynolds and their
publicist, alleging extortionand defamation.
Lively's attorneys just said ina statement today's opinion is
(00:23):
a total victory and a completevindication for Blake Lively,
along with those that JustinBaldoni and the Wayfarer parties
dragged into their retaliatorylawsuit, including Ryan Reynolds
.
Molly McPherson (00:33):
Yes, a judge threw out a $400 million
defamation lawsuit filed byactor and director Justin
Baldoni.
The defendants, of course,blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds,
the New York Times, even herpublicist.
The ruling a total dismissal.
Every defamation claim gone.
But this podcast is going toshare with you a thought not to
(00:57):
get completely distracted by thelegal headline.
But, as your friendlyneighborhood crisis manager, I'm
(01:29):
going to tell you not to getdistracted by the legal headline
.
This wasn't just a court caseand a court ruling.
This was a reputational chessmove and the court happened to
call checkmate on Baldoni.
But who really won or lost thegame?
Let's talk about weaponizingdefamation and what this win for
Lively and is it a win stillwon't fix anyone involved.
Hey there, welcome to the PRBreakdown.
I'm your host, molly McPherson,and each week I like to break
down the headlines we see andpull out a PR slash life lesson
about the importance ofcommunication.
In this episode let's talkabout what happens when people
(01:51):
weaponize defamation law as acrisis response tactic.
Heads up, it rarely ends well,especially in the digital age
where truth travels so quicklyand privilege protections travel
even faster.
I know so many people aretalking about the legal headline
(02:12):
, but I still want to focus onthe PR headline or the subhead.
I want to look at what happenswhen legal action and PR
strategy get tangled and whydefamation claims, especially
from public figures, almostalways end up making things
worse.
Now, if you're a public-facingperson either in politics,
(02:34):
publicity, an influencer, you'reonline, a local business owner,
you're someone whose reputationcould cost you if you lose it,
and you've asked in the past oryou think you may ask in the
future should I sue fordefamation?
This is your episode and at theend of this episode I am going
to give you a resource that youcan use over and over again.
(02:56):
But more on that later.
Let's start with the facts ofthe case.
Let's just start with somebasic facts.
I'm not going to spend too muchtime here because you've all
heard about the story.
Justin Baldoni accused BlakeLively, her husband Ryan
Reynolds and others ofconspiring to destroy his
reputation through falseallegations of sexual harassment
and retaliation.
(03:17):
He filed the suit after Livelymade formal complaints to the
California Civil RightsDepartment and later filed a
federal lawsuit in New Yorkexpanding on her claims from
last December.
In response, baldoni sued fordefamation, but this week the
court ruled that Lively'sstatements were protected by
(03:38):
litigation privilege.
Reynolds also protected.
He relied on Lively's versionof events.
The New York Times alsoprotected under the fair report
privilege.
This wasn't just a legalcounterpunch, it was an effort
(04:06):
to claw back control of anarrative that had already gone
public.
Who am I talking about?
Well, both parties, blakeLively and Justin Baldoni.
There's a lot of legalmaneuvers going back and forth
and that happens a lot in thesehigh-profile cases.
Lot in these high-profile cases.
(04:27):
Now, if you've been followingthis story, you know that it
starts last August at therelease of the movie it Ends
With Us, which alsosimultaneously released with
Ryan Reynolds' Deadpool movie.
The duo's dual movie releaseshould have been a big moment
for the couple, a bigreputational moment for this
A-list couple, but it wasn't.
(04:47):
It went south spectacularly.
Both premieres were delayed dueto the writer's strike, so they
both happened to sync togetherin August.
August typically is a newsdesert of a month, but it also
gives opportunity for events tohappen because there isn't
competition with other storiesout there, other premieres.
So it actually worked out intheir favor.
(05:09):
But what did not work in theirfavor was the negative sentiment
.
There was a lot of negativebuzz around the movie because
there were a lot of negativewhispers behind the scenes.
I'm not going to go too deepinto those.
There is plenty of internetcontent for you to untangle.
I mentioned that I wrote anarticle for Forbes as a
(05:30):
contributor back then,highlighting the social media
crisis of it all.
I noticed right away thatthings were not going well for
Blake Lively and I was alsospotting what they were doing
with the press.
There were a lot of, and I wasalso spotting what they were
doing with the press.
There were a lot of strategictitles in People magazine.
There was something afoot.
No one knew exactly what wasgoing on until December late
(05:54):
December 2024, when Lively filedthe civil complaint and it
swept up Baldoni.
She accused him, her co-starand director on it Ends With Us
of sexual harassment and acoordinated smear campaign.
Her team subpoenaed phonerecords from Baldoni, his
publicist, a producer and evenhis crisis manager, spanning
(06:15):
more than two years ofcommunication.
Now some of that data hadalready surfaced in filings.
There is speculation that a PRprofessional, stephanie Jones,
accessed one of those phones andhanded key messages to Lively's
team.
I think that's a verybelievable narrative and, even
though that part hasn't beenconfirmed in court, it is a part
(06:38):
of the broader narrative andone that I personally find
believable.
Bottom line.
Lively went public with veryserious claims and she had
receipts to back them up.
Baldoni was effectivelycanceled within 48 hours of this
complaint being filed.
Because it also happened tosync with a big story in the New
(07:03):
York Times, that really putBaldoni in a bad light.
He was dropped from his agency,the one he shares with Lively
and Reynolds.
The awards were being rescinded.
Some people were coming outonline in support of Lively, but
I think at the time most peopledid not know what to make of it
.
I had my opinions.
I've linked all of the contentthat I've made about this case
(07:27):
since last October so you canrefer to them in the show notes.
Also, you.
The act of defiance, I believe,reframed him Not as someone
(07:49):
who's guilty and retreating butas someone who is willing to
push back In crisis.
Pr friction matters If yourname is already being dismantled
step by step in the headlines.
Filing a suit, even a losing one, can slow the narrative down.
That's what Baldoni gained byputting his story out there at a
(08:13):
time when Lively was attackinghim.
It started the content and thecommentary and there was
overwhelming commentary favoringBaldoni.
I think he lost a lot oftraction from a PR perspective
this week, but I think a lot ofthat goodwill remains.
(08:35):
Now what it means for all threeof the players.
Let's just talk about thereputational impact for everyone
involved.
Blake Lively and Ryan Reynoldswell, they had a win in court,
but this was no clean win.
The accusations, the lawsuits,the subpoenas none of that
disappears with a ruling.
The story's already out and thecourt ruling doesn't erase the
(08:56):
public's memory.
They've regained momentum?
Yes, definitely, but the shineis dulled.
People have already made uptheir minds.
There may be some people whomaybe think less negatively
about Reynolds and Lively, but Iwould be hard-pressed to find a
lot of people out there atleast content creators who are
(09:19):
going to come out and say, whoa,I was 100% wrong about Blake
Lively and Ryan Reynolds.
Oh man, it was all about JustinBaldoni.
If you find those people, letme know, because I want to find
those people, because I wouldlove to see what they have to
say.
I think most people are goingto keep their minds in the same
place, where it was initiallyeither in August or definitely
(09:41):
in December, for Lively andReynolds.
They are a couple known forbrand management and likability,
but this whole ordeal left amark.
How likable can you be whenyou're dropping stories in the
press against a person?
How likable are you whenBaldoni is stuck in the basement
during a premiere?
How likable are you when all ofthese stories come out about
(10:03):
you and how you treat people andthey're starting to get a lot
of traction online?
How likable are you when youhave to resort to so much PR
strategy to get your story outthere?
Now, as for Baldoni, he lostthe suit, but he showed he
wasn't going to let a story bewritten about him without a
response.
That alone, in the world ofreputation management, can
(10:26):
matter.
If Lively made a strategic moveto go public, baldoni made a
strategic move to push back.
It didn't work out in court forhim, but it does complicate the
narrative and sometimescomplexity is all.
A public figure needs to stopthe freefall.
Okay, I'm going to break in herebecause at the time of this
recording, blake Lively justposted to Instagram.
(10:48):
I'm reading from her stories,so it's not in her main
Instagram feed or grid, it's inher stories.
Last week, I stood proudlyalongside 19 organizations
united in defending women'srights to speak up for their
safety.
Like so many others, I felt thepain of a retaliatory lawsuit,
including the manufactured shamethat tries to break us.
(11:09):
While the suit against me wasdefeated, so many don't have the
resources to fight back.
I'm more resolved than ever tocontinue to stand for every
woman's right to have a voice inprotecting themselves,
including their safety, theirintegrity, their dignity and
their story.
There are protections out there.
Check out some of theincredible organizations below
for resources and information.
With love and gratitude for themany who stood by me many of
(11:32):
you I know, many of you I don't,but I will never stop
appreciating or advocating foryou.
B and then she has a link tothese associations.
I'm going to say this right offthe bat she did not write this,
and the reason why I can tellis because, to say this right
off the bat, she did not writethis, and the reason why I can
tell is because there are twospaces after the period, and she
(11:54):
doesn't do that in a lot of herposts.
That's something that's usuallythe hallmark of someone who's
older, so her publicist, leslieSloan, probably wrote this for
her.
However, the message is astrong one, and one that she
likely obviously believes in.
It's a good statement.
This is good PR.
This is good PR.
Without naming Justin Baldoni.
She found another way to labelhim as someone who manufactured
(12:19):
a campaign against her.
It's interesting.
It's a smart PR move, there'sno doubt about that.
But the question is do webelieve it?
This is PR.
She could feel this way.
I mean, who wouldn't feel thisway about safety?
It's a good statement and everyfemale actress, I think every
female and I think many peopleof all genders would agree with
(12:41):
this and agree with that feelingthat every woman will.
Really every person has a rightto have their voice and
protecting themselves.
That includes their safety andtheir integrity and their
dignity and their story.
It's a human right, not just awoman's right, but it's a human
right.
But this is just my personalopinion here.
I still think they did the samething to Justin Baldoni.
I really do.
(13:01):
Now, it's not to absolve JustinBaldoni from everything that
happened on the set.
Nobody knows truly whathappened from the set, but we
cannot omit the Lively Reynoldsfactor of what they did to
Baldoni.
There were other ways to managethis.
They are the ones who startedthe legal proceedings and this
is why, when you go legal, it isalways almost always a PR
(13:27):
disaster.
Let's look at defamationlawsuits and why they fail and
why they fail so often.
Let's pause here for a quicklook at defamation An important
clarification because a lot oflegal terms get tossed around
online, especially when tensionsare high in a PR reputation
(13:50):
crisis.
But this is an area that comesup in my work all the time,
perhaps not at a lively Baldonilevel, but I have dealt with
numerous, numerous clients whocome to me because of legal
issues that they are currentlyin or they want to make and they
need my advice and they need myadvice for how to manage it.
(14:13):
So, if you're someone in theonline space, if you're an
influencer, if you're a name, ifyou're someone in the public
space, let's talk about thisbecause it's important.
Here's what you need to know.
Defamation 101.
Defamation is the umbrella term.
It means someone made a falsestatement about you, presented
it as fact, shared it withsomeone else and it hurt your
(14:36):
reputation.
For all my journalism majorsout there, let's go back in time
.
Let's go back to college.
New York Times versus Sullivanin 1964.
Did you get this correct inyour journalism ethics course in
college?
Get this correct in yourjournalism ethics course in
college.
It was a landmark US SupremeCourt case establishing the
quote actual malice standard fordefamation suits involving
(15:01):
public officials.
The court ruled that publicofficials must prove that false
statements were made importantwith knowledge of their falsity
or with reckless disregard forthe truth.
So this court case expandedpress protections.
Why that matters is becausethere's a lot of court cases
against the press.
(15:21):
Now I know what you're thinking, but Molly Baldoni versus
Lively isn't about the press.
Well, it was, if you rememberwhat's getting lost in the
headlines.
The New York Times was alsoinvolved.
So maybe now in journalismethics courses they may ask the
question about New York Timesversus Beltone.
Not likely, but they'll bediscussing it ad nauseum on
(15:43):
TikTok and social media.
But let's just talk aboutdefamation in general, because
this term does get tossed arounda lot and when you think of
people in the public eye, it'susually against a press outfit
as opposed to another person.
But in my world crisismanagement, so often people come
to me because they want to filedefamation cases against people
(16:07):
saying things about them, andit becomes my job to listen to
them then explain what it takesto win a defamation case.
So I'll share this.
You generally have to provefour things.
One, the statement was false.
Two, it was communicated to athird party.
Three, the person who said itwas at least negligent.
(16:30):
And four, it caused real harmto your reputation.
That number four is a trickyone.
You have to prove that itcaused real harm to your
reputation.
You cannot place a dollaramount on your feelings that
they were hurt or that someonesaid something bad about you and
(16:52):
now you're pissed off, which isusually the reason why people
bring up legal with me, becausesomeone said something and they
want to do something about it.
And they want to go legalbecause they think that is the
more powerful punch that you canmake against someone.
And I happen to think that thisBaldoni lawsuit, even though he
(17:12):
lost it, was tossed right now.
I think it caused a lot moredamage.
Now let's revisit your collegejournalism ethics quiz, where
you had to explain thedifference between libel and
slander.
I'm going to share with you mymnemonic, my memory hack, to
remember the difference betweenlibel and slander, and this goes
(17:33):
back to my freshman year ofcollege.
I've never forgotten this.
When you think of libel, thefirst three letters of libel is
L-I-B, the same three lettersthat spell library.
Libraries have written andpublished material, but it goes
beyond a library.
But think articles, socialposts, emails, even images.
(17:56):
If it's fixed in some permanentform it's liable.
And when public figures sue forlibel they have to meet a
higher bar.
They must prove actual malice,that the person knew it was
false or didn't care whether itwas true.
This is the whole piece aboutRyan Reynolds.
It's very, very hard to provewhat Ryan Reynolds was doing.
(18:18):
You know it's very difficultfor Baldoni to prove that Ryan
Reynolds was doing this to him.
Now, slander here is yourmemory aid.
Slender is a statement that'sspoken.
Slander begins with s and it'salso a damaging statement that's
said out loud to someone elsethat causes harm.
(18:40):
Unlike libel, slander usuallyrequires proof of actual harm.
Hurt feelings don't count.
You have to show.
It costs you something your job, your clients, your credibility
, ticket sales, reputation,getting jobs.
Again, you have to prove it.
Now, another legal maneuver thatcomes up a lot in my work is a
(19:01):
cease and desist.
Usually, when someone brings uplawyers with me or a legal
maneuver, they always bring up acease and desist and they can
take on two forms.
There's a cease and desistletter and it's just that a
letter.
It demands that someone stop acertain behavior or statements,
and the reason why I tell peoplenot to do it, I think 100% of
(19:21):
the time is because it's notlegally binding.
It does put the other person onnotice, but it also pisses them
off and they turn it into ajoke.
If someone wants to send acease and desist letter in my
world, what I tell them whatwill happen is you will be
mocked because of that letter,because it's not legally binding
.
There's nothing that they cando with it at all.
(19:42):
It's maybe you could.
You could look at it as a firstshot across the bow in a
reputational dispute.
It shows that you'll go legalon something, but 100% of the
time I've told clients don'teven bother.
Now there is a cease and desistorder On the other hand, that's
(20:02):
going to come from a court oragency and that one is legally
binding and must be obeyed.
Now I had a client recentlywhere a cease and desist order
worked because the other persondid say things that were false.
They posted things that werefalse and they were reckless and
they were proven to be false.
(20:23):
So it was very easy to put anorder out there to say you have
to remove everything.
But the bottom line is this.
If you are in a PR mess andyou're thinking about legal
action or you're beingthreatened with it, it is
helpful to know the differencebetween a headline, a letter, a
comment and a lawsuit.
What I typically tell people isif emotion is driving your
(20:46):
legal decision, take a breath,pause and think it out, because
it's usually the wrong course,which I tell them honestly 99%
of the time.
Anyone who works with me andlegal is added to the chat they
often get a big pushback from mebecause legal, in my opinion,
(21:09):
only exacerbates a crisis.
It only makes it worse.
Only go to legal if there is areason, like a legal reason,
that you can show proof thatwhatever was said was malicious
and it was harmful and you weredamaged from it.
Otherwise, you're just going tomake things worse.
And when they come to me,that's when I start asking
(21:31):
questions Is the statementactually false or is it just
damaging?
Can you prove it was knowinglymalicious?
What do you really want?
Do you want a retraction?
Do you want them to chill?
Do you want control?
Do you want to push back?
I mean usually what it is?
It's a punch.
They want to hurt the otherperson as much as the person
hurt them and then I tell themare you prepared for discovery,
(21:55):
cross-examination and everymessage from your past to go
public?
That's something that BlakeLively is learning, particularly
when it relates to Taylor Swift, and now the Taylor Swift part
of her case got so messy as well.
But most of all, how will itlook when you sue someone for
speaking out?
Because if the accusation istied to negative commentary and
(22:18):
your first instinct is toretaliate through the courts,
you've already lost thereputation battle, even if you
win the legal one.
In the case of Blake Livelyhere she did the law may be on
your side, but public opinionrarely is.
Now let's zoom out a bit andtalk about some of the cases out
there.
What you're hearing from me isthat it is extremely hard to win
(22:40):
a defamation suit in the US.
That's why it's very likelythat Justin Baldoni knew from
the get-go, his lawyer knewFriedman knew from the get-go
that they weren't going to winthis case.
It's huge to win.
It's really, really difficultto win a defamation suit in the
US, especially if you're apublic figure.
Just ask Sarah Palin.
(23:07):
In 2017, palin sued the New YorkTimes over an editorial that
incorrectly linked her politicalaction committee to the 2011
mass shooting that woundedCongresswoman Gabby Giffords.
The Times later issued acorrection, but Palin claimed
the editorial defamed her andcaused her reputational harm.
The initial trial was in 2022,and the federal judge and the
jury both ruled in favor of theNew York Times.
(23:27):
They found that Palin had notproven actual malice.
However, it should be said,during jury deliberations, the
judge announced his intention todismiss the case and some
jurors reportedly learned ofthis before delivering their
verdict, raising concerns aboutthe process.
Palin appealed, arguing thatthe judge's actions and
exclusion of certain evidenceimproperly influenced the jury.
(23:49):
Then, in August 2024, thefederal appeals court agreed
ordering a new trial due toprocedural errors, and then the
retrial began in April 2025.
Now I assume that most peoplewere not following the Palin v
New York Times court case inApril 2025 at the level of a
Karen Reid trial, but they hadthe same arguments and Palin's
(24:13):
team claimed the Times willfullyignored the facts and the
verdict that came out that theNew York Times was not liable.
Welfare fraud scandal.
Sharp accused Brett Favre ofstealing of quote stealing from
the poor.
Brett Favre called itdefamatory and the court
(24:43):
disagreed and it was dismissedin 2023.
But some people do win JohnnyDepp versus Amber Heard in 2022.
Depp sued Heard over a 2018Washington Post op-ed in which
she described herself as asurvivor of domestic abuse.
She didn't name Depp, but histeam argued the implication was
clear and damaging.
(25:05):
It became a television mediacircus and there was a lot of
accusations about manipulationwith bots.
The jury ultimately sided withDepp, awarding him $15 million
in damages.
That was later reduced, butHeard also won $2 million in a
counter suit.
There is Dominion Voting Systemsversus Fox News in 2023.
(25:25):
And this one wasn't just alegal win, it was a media
reckoning.
Dominion sued Fox News forrepeatedly airing false claims
that its voting machines riggedthe 2020 presidential election.
Dominion argued that Fox airedthese claims knowing they were
false.
So in April 2023, fox settledthe case for $787.5 million.
(25:47):
That's the largest publiclyknown defamation suit.
And then, lastly, we have E JeanCarroll versus Donald Trump.
The writer accused Donald Trumpof sexually assaulting her in
the 90s and sued him fordefamation after he publicly
denied allegations and attackedher credibility.
Jury found Trump liable forboth sexual abuse and defamation
, awarding Carroll $5 million,and in a second defamation trial
(26:10):
in 2024, she was awarded anadditional $83.3 million.
So there you have your examples.
But, bottom line, mostdefamation cases from public
figures don't end in vindication.
They end in exposure.
The people who win either bringoverwhelming proof and survive
(26:31):
public scrutiny, or they settlebefore the trial to stop the
bleeding.
For every Depp or Carroll,there's a Palin, a Favre, a
Lively.
You know someone who tried tosue their way out of a crisis,
only ended up deeper in it.
Yes, johnny Depp may have wonthat court case, but where is he
now?
(26:52):
It exposed too much and that'sthe pattern, and it's one that I
believe leaders andcommunicators need to recognize
early.
But also if you're someonewhose livelihood depends on
commentary't to cheerlead.
Your job is to assess risk.
Slow the panic.
Ask the question that I ask Areyou trying to win a case or
reclaim credibility?
File a lawsuit?
(27:40):
Your story stops being yours.
It becomes someone else'ssocial media post.
It becomes a content creator'sheyday, because they're going to
keep talking about it andyou're going to drag yourself
through a lot of negativecommentary.
It's true that Baldoni's name isnow tied to a failed $400
million lawsuit.
There are retaliationallegations and a judge's rebuke
.
That's not exactly brandbuilding, but he did fight back
(28:04):
and his story got out there.
Lively and Reynolds they wonthis round, but it's not a clean
reset.
The damage is done.
The story is unfolding, butLively and Reynolds story is
unfolding, but Lively andReynolds.
It would be impossible for themto ever come back to where they
were prior to August 2024.
(28:25):
The real takeaway here fromsomeone who does this for a
living don't use the legalsystem to fix a PR problem.
It's not a strategy, it's athreat, and threats don't build
trust.
If you're someone who isnavigating this space, either as
helping someone, whether you'reat an agency, whether you're
helping someone or you mightfind yourself in it.
(28:45):
I've created a fillabledecision tree.
It's one that you can use overand over again, titled Should
you Sue for Defamation.
It's available to paidsubscribers on my sub stack.
It's available to paidsubscribers on my sub stack.
You can find the link in theshow notes or just head on over
to prbreakdownmedia.
That's all for this week on thepodcast.
(29:08):
Thanks so much for listening.
Bye for now.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com