- PR pros and lawyers see the Lively-Baldoni fight as part of a larger trend.
- They say public figures often file lawsuits to try to influence the popular narrative.
- Media outlets can sometimes become collateral damage in this strategy.
As Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni hurl competing accusations in court, some media lawyers and PR pros see their battle as part of a bigger trend of prominent figures using lawsuits to change public opinion.
“They’re done primarily as a PR play,” Juda Engelmayer, a veteran crisis PR pro, said of lawsuits like Lively’s and Baldoni’s.
Lively accused her “It Ends With Us” costar Baldoni of sexually harassing her and engaging in a smear campaign against her. The New York Times detailed her allegations in an article published December 21.
Baldoni and his camp fired back in a libel lawsuit against the Times in California Superior Court. Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, also said last week that his client planned to sue Lively.
Several media lawyers told BI they saw a calculated PR strategy at work on both sides.
Lively’s initial complaint, filed with the California Civil Rights Department, coincided with the Times article on the allegations, which was based on the complaint and supporting documents. Filing a legal complaint gives cover to the plaintiff to make accusations and to the news outlet to freely report on it because it’s shielded by fair reporting privileges.
And the complaint was filed right before the holidays, which could have made it harder for the Baldoni camp to respond. Lively later filed a federal lawsuit making similar claims against Baldoni and others.
Lively’s claims and Baldoni’s subsequent suit made huge splashes with widespread media coverage. Media lawyers told BI they saw Baldoni’s suit as weak from a libel standpoint, but the details helped him publicize his side of the story.
Other examples of narrative-shaping lawsuits include actor Sophie Turner’s 2023 “wrongful retention” legal complaint against her now ex-husband, which was later dismissed, and Drake’s recent petitions against Universal Music Group and Spotify over Kendrick Lamar’s song “Not Like Us.”
“It happens quite often that people and companies with lots of resources use multi-tiered litigation” to get advantages outside the legal system, said Sean Andrade of Los Angeles law firm Andrade Gonzalez, who’s represented plaintiffs in libel cases.
“It doesn’t matter that you’re going to lose because the goal was to publicize your side of the story and create some doubt in Blake Lively’s,” he said of Baldoni’s libel suit against the Times.
Media caught in the crossfire
Lawyers and PR pros told BI that defamation cases often have a PR motive — and media outlets are a common target.
Before Johnny Depp won a US defamation case against his ex-wife Amber Heard in 2019, he sued the UK’s Sun for libel.
Engelmayer said that though Depp lost that first case, it still served a purpose.
“Any time anyone sues a major publication, even if they lose in court, it’s a win for those who support him. And for those sitting on the fence, it makes them think twice,” he said.
There are some legal safeguards to prevent the unfair weaponizing of defamation suits.
Many US states now have anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) laws. These laws are meant to protect news outlets or other entities from frivolous lawsuits that can be costly to defend. Thirty-four states and DC have such laws, which typically let defendants who win anti-SLAPP motions recover legal fees, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
These laws have helped news outlets fight many meritless cases, said George Freeman, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center, which provides legal resources to media outlets.
Still, the laws aren’t always effective at preventing lawsuits from being filed. Deep-pocketed plaintiffs can weather big legal fees if they lose a case. Press advocates said that anecdotally, they’d seen an uptick in anti-media rhetoric or baseless cases against the media. PEN America said that lately, courts have been letting more cases go forward, financially burdening media outlets and threatening to require them to reveal confidential sources.
“There seem to be more cases than we’ve seen, including some against media,” Freeman said of defamation suits more broadly. “So deterrents don’t seem to be working. Media isn’t as well off as it once was. So they’re a target.”
These lawsuits can be costly and distracting for media organizations, even if they win.
“Even in situations where a news organization is able to get a defamation case dismissed, there is a time and resource cost that is significant,” said Jennifer Nelson, senior staff attorney for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. She recalled one case she handled where the news outlet eventually won, but only after years of litigation.
“Particularly for smaller outlets, it can be a challenge and have a chilling effect on reporting,” she said.
