Blake Lively’s allegations against Justin Baldoni shine a spotlight on Hollywood’s “hostile” tactics

Actress Blake Lively was arguably the internet’s public enemy number one for a few weeks over the summer. She has now filed an explosive lawsuit that she says exposes “hostile work environments” created to tarnish reputations in Hollywood – and leave people wondering who and what to believe.

Blake Lively has always been a pretty harmless actress.

She had appeared in hit TV shows and films such as Gossip Girl and The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants. She married fellow superstar Ryan Reynolds. She is friends with Taylor Swift.

Then, in August, while promoting her latest film, It Ends With Us, she said suddenly became controversial, shortly before the cancellation.

She was criticized for comments that appeared to downplay domestic violence, the film’s theme; while unpleasant old interviews have been resurfaced and repurposed as evidence of bullying behavior.

Public opinion – at least among those who knew and cared about her – seemed to have turned against her.

Then the movie came out, the excitement died down, and social media moved on.

But Lively has now filed a lawsuit alleging she was sexually harassed by “It Ends With Us” co-star and director Justin Baldoni – and that he and his studio Wayfarer responded to her complaint by they waged a campaign to “destroy” their reputation.

Her lawyers claimed she was the subject of a “sophisticated, coordinated and well-funded retaliation plan” aimed at “silencing her,” an “armed digital army” and fake stories fed to “ignorant reporters” – and because of this she became the focus of negative publicity.

In the roughly 80-page complaint, Lively’s team repeatedly accuses Badoni and Wayfarer of creating a “hostile work environment that nearly derailed the film’s production.”

Her lawyers have released text messages sent between Baldoni’s publicist, Jennifer Abel, and Melissa Nathan, a crisis communications specialist hired by his studio to help handle the harassment complaint. They seem to offer a rare glimpse into conversations that usually take place outside the spotlight.

Nathan proposed a strategy to “start theory threads” on social media, “create, seed and promote content that appears authentic” and engage in “social manipulation,” the legal documents say.

“You know we can bury anyone,” Nathan wrote to Abel in a scathing discussion.

Now the people tasked with crisis PR for Baldoni are doing crisis PR for themselves.

Abel said Lively’s lawyers “cherry-picked” messages to bring into her case without the crucial context and that “no ‘defamation’ was implemented.”

“There was never any negative press, no social battle plan, although we were prepared for it as it is our job to be prepared for any scenario.”

“But we didn’t have to implement anything because the internet did the work for us.”

The backlash against Lively arose naturally and didn’t need her help, Abel said.

Attorney Bryan Freedman, who represents Baldoni and his studio as well as Abel and Nathan, confirmed this.

He said Baldoni hired a crisis manager because of “multiple demands and threats” allegedly made by Lively, including “the threat not to show up to the set, the threat not to promote the film, which ultimately led to that he failed during publication when she demanded it “were not fulfilled”.

He said the plan devised by Nathan’s company “proved unnecessary as audiences found Lively’s own actions, interviews and marketing during the promotional tour uncomfortable and responded organically to what the media itself picked up on.”

Overall, Freedman called Lively’s complaint “shameful” and full of “categorically false allegations.”

In recent days, Lively has received support from a number of former co-stars and others in Hollywood.

The name of one of their supporters stands out.

Amber Heard, former wife of Johnny Depp, NBC said: “Social media is the absolute embodiment of the classic saying: ‘A lie travels halfway around the world before the truth can take hold.’

“I saw this first hand and up close. It is as terrible as it is destructive.”

Heard was the subject of social media hostility during two high-profile libel cases against Depp in the UK and US in 2020 and 2022. Nathan also reportedly worked for Depp.

Freedman responded to Heard that the only connection between her and Lively was that “for decades, every move they made was visible to everyone” so that the public “could make up their own minds – which they naturally did.”

Tortoise Media’s head of investigations, Alexi Mostrous, hosted a podcast titled Who trolled Amber? Earlier this year she examined the abuse she suffered and noted there were parallels.

“In both the Blake Lively and Amber Heard cases, PR firms work with digital media specialists and other ‘contractors’ to promote online stories that benefit their wealthy clients in ways that are opaque and difficult to understand,” he told BBC News.

“It’s an unregulated world where all sorts of tactics can take place behind closed doors.”

Variety said Lively’s case “exposes a showbiz process designed to operate in secret – hiring expensive crisis communications experts to sway opinion and galvanize customers.”

Her allegations suggest a “sinister shadow campaign” that “goes beyond what most Hollywood advertising firms consider acceptable.” The Wrap’s Sharon Waxman wrote:.

According to Rory Lynch, partner and head of reputation management law at Gateley Legal, a “fairly common tactic” in Hollywood and commercial disputes is for “PRs on both sides to spread negative stories, sometimes false stories, about the opposition.”

“Even in the golden era of Hollywood, there were rumors that Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor used PR professionals to write negative letters against each other.”

However, the PR people working for Baldoni and his studio “dropped the ball a bit” by discussing tactics in texts, he told BBC News.

“It doesn’t surprise me that there are pretty aggressive crisis PR people, particularly in the US and in Hollywood.”

“But the fact that they put that in writing, I think, may not have been the wisest thing to do. Normally they would do something like that over the phone.”

Lively herself is “a demanding employee” who “also has her own PR people working in the background,” Lynch added.

The New York Timeswhich published the story of Lively’s complaint over the weekend, said she “denies that she or any of her representatives placed or disseminated negative information about Mr. Baldoni or Wayfarer.”

The paper also pointed out that “it is impossible to know how much of the negative publicity” toward Lively originally came from those working on Baldoni’s behalf, “and how much they noticed and amplified.”

Many fans who turned against Lively now see the situation in a different light.

“We allow ourselves to be manipulated into hating a woman, that all it takes is a coordinated public relations effort to change sides against a victim of domestic violence or a long-time beloved American lover.” wrote Maddy Mussen in the Standard.

“Now that we have our eyes open, will we be harder to deceive?” Or do we still want an excuse to turn against a famous woman who is suddenly no longer worthy in our eyes and in the eyes of those who manipulate us?”

The Guardian’s Laura Snapes wrote that she and her friends now “looked back in horror at what we had said about her in recent months.”

She added: “Lively’s complaint turned my head. Who can you really trust?”