5. Lively v. Baldoni: Media Strategy, Missteps, & Reputational Fallout

Reputation Nation hosts Anne Marie Malecha and Stacy Bratcher examine high stakes litigation through the Blake Lively v. Justin Baldoni case, exploring the critical relationship between legal strategy and crisis communications when every filing makes headlines and every statement goes viral. They break down why “no comment” is never neutral, crisis management as a containment discipline and the use of litigation websites as strategic first-strike tools to frame narratives. The episode covers the pressure to speak versus the benefits of staying quiet, publicity for different stakeholder types and practical advice on vetting crisis firms.

Lively v. Baldoni: Media Strategy, Missteps, & Reputational Fallout Transcript:

Anne Marie:

Stacy and I are excited to welcome you to the Reputation Nation. Today we’re kicking off a multi-episode series about the Blake Lively vs. Justin Baldoni legal and public relations battle. This case is more than a celebrity feud. It’s a case in how to use lawsuits as PR weapons, how public opinion influences outcomes, and how perception is everything. So why are a corporate lawyer and a crisis manager talking about this celebrity case? Because it’s a textbook example of high stakes lawfare how to do it, how not to do it, and we’re going to examine the ins and outs of this case, deconstructing it and providing actionable insights for both our corporate colleagues and celebrity gossip fans.

For those not familiar with this case, here’s a 30 second, TLDR on the state of play. Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni co-starred in the movie adaptation of It Ends With Us, a story centered on domestic violence. The film was released in August, 2024. with Lively facing significant online backlash for what many deemed tone deaf marketing. In December 2024, Lively filed a sexual harassment complaint with the California Civil Rights Department against Baldoni and a separate retaliation lawsuit in New York. This was accompanied by a New York Times expose alleging that Baldoni orchestrated a smear campaign against Lively to tarnish her reputation. Baldoni quickly responded by filing a libel lawsuit against the New York Times on December 31st, followed by another lawsuit against Lively, her husband, Ryan Reynolds, and other defendants, including PR people, accusing them of extortion, defamation, and other claims.

Over recent months, the high stakes legal battle between Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively continued to intensify with Baldoni fighting to keep his $400 million defamation lawsuit alive. A judge approved new protective measures in the case and Baldoni is expanding his claims to target Ryan Reynolds and the New York Times. There’s been significant media coverage, multiple documentary series release and very interesting legal maneuvering from both sides with a trial date set for March 2026.

Stacy:

Today I’m in the hot seat with Anne Marie Malecha, crisis comms expert and battle tested advisor to examine the media strategy behind the Blake Lively vs Justin Baldoni case. We’re talking strategic silence, shaping public perception and what it really takes to manage or mismanage a high stakes legal crisis. So Anne Marie, there is just this persistent tension, you know, in all the matters I’ve worked on, even the ones we’ve worked on very well together, there is a tension between the pressure to respond, to get your story out there, to push your narrative. And on the legal side, wanting to keep things very contained because you are in a more structured environment and anything you say can be used against you as sort of the tagline. And so I’m wondering if you could share a little bit about how you navigate the sort of don’t say a word, the lawyer’s telling you no comment and the client telling you, we’ve got to tell our story. Like, how do you split that difference?

Anne Marie:

I am the splitting of the difference if we’re gonna be really glib on that. So the interesting thing for everyone to consider in these situations is that crisis management is a containment discipline. Public relations is the exact opposite. Now when you’re dealing with the media, people inherently think it’s public relations. In this case, it’s not. We are trying to contain a message. most lawyers understand that if nothing is said, you cannot add any additional risk within the courtroom. If you don’t say anything, however, you can add risk in the court of public opinion with employees, with shareholders, with regulators, with all of those other stakeholders that we’ve discussed. And that is where the risk calculus of to say or not to say really comes into play.

If you say no comment, that is a comment. You are providing something on the record to say, I’m not addressing this. And I think worse than no comment is we can’t comment on active litigation. Sometimes-

Stacy:

You don’t like that?

Anne Marie:

Sometimes you have to say that, especially when you got a filing 20 minutes ago and you’ve already got a reporter calling you saying, what’s your reaction to that? Then the response is, we’ve received the filing, we’re reviewing it. We intend to preserve our ability to defend ourselves, but we haven’t had a chance to review this thoroughly or sort of whatever the framing is, but you don’t want to necessarily be dismissive.

Also part of it is you have to use the media in some capacity, whether you like it or not. They’re gonna take you along for a ride and do you want to be in the passenger seat being able to guide some of the navigation at all? Or do you wanna sit in the back seat and get thrown around with every turn and twist that comes? And that’s the way I look at framing how you engage with media specifically and the relationship between legal and public relations. And it is making sure that everything you do does layer up to the ultimate legal strategy because at the end of the day, it has to hold up in court. And some of the cases that we’ve been involved in, there have been stakeholders that we didn’t have full control over message discipline on because they decided to go off script or say, we’re gonna promise X and that’s not something that could be delivered on and that comes back to bite you.

So it’s making sure that you go as far as you can within the bounds of the strategy that you have, understanding that you’re not saying everything that you’d like to say because you might need to preserve the ability to drop that piece later. Or if you get into it, you’re opening up a line of questioning or discovery that the other side has that you don’t want them to have yet. And I think that’s where crisis management and communicators and legal teams have to be really honest with each other.

A lot of times there are lawyers that don’t want to share the legal strategy with the communications team. And I understand that leaks happen and that’s why having a really trusted team is critical. We keep our teams super small. I mean, think back to some of the war rooms we were in, there were four of us at most and we were working on, you know, huge issues.

So ensuring that there is that trust because if I can understand your legal strategy and you can understand the communications objectives, then we can create something that is cohesive and understand there will be give and take. There were times we didn’t talk to reporters. We completely stonewalled them because that was the right thing for us to be doing. A good crisis manager isn’t going to be opposed to that if there is a smart strategy around it.

Stacy:

Yeah, you know what’s interesting, I think in the Lively Baldoni case is that it’s not the normal, you know, reporters with questions and you know, there’s every time there’s a court appearance, there’s a story where the court calendar is driving content. What’s so fascinating to me is that this has become, I mean, just our podcast, there are dozens of other podcasts and articles and social all around this case. Like the comms part has a life of its own largely because I think, you know, the, the complaints have text messages and that Friedman litigation lawsuit, which are a website, which I think was really strategic. And I wanted to talk with you, Anne Marie, about those litigation websites. And you know, that’s an aggressive move. I don’t think Baldoni had a choice, but I wonder from the comms perspective. What are your thoughts on that? know, you’re in the foxhole.

Anne Marie:

We love litigation websites and we them all the time. It’s not always the right choice. It’s the best opportunities when you’re able to come out with it first. So if you’re the one that’s launching the site, because then you’ve got the first bite at the apple, you really have the framing there. Part of it is resource management. So a lot of court filings, you need different accounts with the courts to have access to. want reporters to be able to get them quickly. You also want to have a hub where all the information can live and they really serve as that.

What you’re also doing with them is taking all of the information that you put in the court and cherry picking it into the narrative and positioning and framing that you want to have. It’s all available in the full scale, hundreds of pages of filings that are there, but you’re calling out the pieces in a story format that both reporters and the public can have access to. You can always link back to it. You send people there and people get information based on how it’s added into the ecosystem through the internet.

Most people have Google alerts or you know search alerts for things that mention their name in it. So anytime something is added there that’s a natural benefit and they’re sort of creating this own pipeline for themselves. It’s also a way to sort of trash the other side without trashing the other side because you’ve got this all framed from one position.

In cases that are really complicated, we like them even more because it’s a way to make complex legal matters like bankruptcy or class actions become digestible to the audiences that are parties to the cases or might want to know more.

Stacy:

Yeah, that’s an angle I hadn’t thought about the resource management and using it to tell a story to those stakeholders. That’s really a smart move. I want to ask kind of an age old question, you know, and it’s sort of a tagline, you know, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. Having had my name in the paper, I don’t know if I agree with that, but is that the case? And what does this Baldoni suit tell us about that? I never watched that movie. I had no intention to watch. ends with us and, you know, this whole shit storm just got my attention and got our attention to work on this together and so I watched it so you know they at least got one set of eyeballs they wouldn’t have gotten so is there any such thing as bad publicity?

Anne Marie:

Make that two. And our team behind us, I think that probably makes four sets of eyeballs that might not have watched it. I think it depends on who the sort of party and play is, whether any press is bad press. So in the case of celebrities, they’re a commodity and the commodity they’re selling is based on other people consuming their content, whether that’s, you know, products that they’re hocking or movies that they’re in or TV shows they’re a part of, cetera. So any attention on their name that could potentially draw someone to them and the things they’re doing could have a net benefit in theory from a monetary value and a reputational value. I think for corporate parties, it is different, because the eyes that are on you are often significantly different than a celebrity, particularly the regulatory audience.

I worked on Capitol Hill for a long time and one of the places we went to find things we were gonna make an investigative priority of a committee was the media. And had it not been a headline we saw we wouldn’t have known that Company X had a food recall that impacted however many people in our district and perhaps that’s something we should look at. So it’s not a simple yes or no answer, unfortunately, which I know no one wants to hear, but I think in the Baldoni Lively case specifically, I have a difficult time seeing any press as being a net negative.

Stacy:

Yeah, agreed. Although, you know, for Baldoni, the initial punch, as we called it, was, was damaging, but, know, did you know his name before all this? did not. mean, yes, he got dropped by his agency, but I mean, I’m sure he’s had many other opportunities. He’s just been relevant in a way that he certainly wasn’t before all this.

Anne Marie:

I agree with that entirely and listen, I don’t know the behind the scenes for him, but I’m sure there were plenty of other agents that were willing to pick that up, especially in the climate that we’re in right now, sort of the defending, the defenseless, if you will. And I would bet he’s also probably trying to keep other projects quiet because any sort of indication that he’s doing well doesn’t benefit the claims they’re making in this case.

Stacy:

Well, I think that that is a really interesting question. He is in a better position after this whole situation. There’s just no two ways about it. And so to say he lost $400 million is just at that point is just laughable. And I think that that will be a very interesting line of discovery to see, you know, what, are up to now, Justin?

Anne Marie:

Right. I think the timing is something that I’ve thought a lot about and I’m sort of curious what some of these next steps are because if you are putting together another movie, those do have long timelines, but you don’t want to be in discovery forever because you’re having to pause these other activities that are, could be profitable to you in the future if you need to sort of preserve this position of I’m unable to work, I’m unable to do the thing that, you know, creates the economic engine for me and my family or my business.

Stacy:

Yeah, yeah, litigation is no fun. mean, people need to realize it.

Anne Marie:

It’s not, and it takes a real undertaking. It’s also an incredibly emotional process. There is the emotional component and the logical component, which you and I have talked about, that one day you’re really steeled to the fact that, this is the right thing to do. And six months later, a settlement looks pretty good because it is costly. It takes an emotional toll. That’s something that no lawyer, no crisis manager, no other advisor can prepare somebody for because you don’t know sort of when that dam is just gonna break of I’ve had enough.

Stacy:

Well, the other thing is that litigation is, as you said, a long tail. It sounds, you know, I’m going to lawyer up. I’m going to bury you. You know, you can think about scorched earth, all these sort of metaphors that go around the litigation process, but it is a slow roll. It is painful. You know, I think that what’s interesting to me from the Baldoni Lively situation is and to all of us is that it is a peek into this Hollywood world and, you know, depositions of the biggest stars in our nationwide or globally.

For day-to-day people, like the receipts, getting into your phone and your text messages, et cetera, it’s a very invasive process. And so you really do have to think carefully about going forward with that.

Anne Marie:

You’re inviting continual invasion because discovery isn’t just one and done. You do a deposition and you get more information and then that gives you an opportunity to say, well, I want to get into that now. So who do I go after for this? mean, getting to the discovery process for clients is both the most exciting and most sort of terrifying moment because you don’t know what you’re signing up for at that point. Like sure, there’s some timelines that you assume might be followed, but that can go on forever. And there are cases that we’ve worked on that it’s been decades and if you’re a multi-trillion dollar multinational, that’s a different proposition to sign up for than if you’re an individual person.

Stacy:

Yeah, well, let’s talk about, you know, the crisis management here and, you know, the receipts that came out through there. And I’m particularly interested. Do you think that there were missteps here, especially, you know, as we’re learning that there was another lawsuit that subpoenaed these records from Jones?

As you see with the receipts in the Baldoni-Lively case, that you can take a lot of things out of context very quickly and use it to your advantage or twist things. And that happens, you know, even if you’re not the one in the lawsuit, you are sort of on the side of it. And reporters often want to get records. And if you’re dealing with an issue that’s foible, they’ll find things. If they can try and file subpoenas, they will. You know, it’s a calculus for how you do business on the side of the Jones firm.

I can’t speak for what their contract looked like. I don’t know sort of the back end of that, but the double dealing is a tricky place to be to go from one side to the other and have that be how you operate. At the end of the day, relationships are everything in any business, but particularly in one where you’re being asked to hold someone’s hand and guide them through some of the most challenging things that they’re gonna face. So that’s pretty tricky. I think a lot of firms say they do crisis management and many big firms do, but the difference is I don’t prioritize my relationships with reporters or other parties more so than my clients. I’m never gonna trade that information or leak if it’s not strategic to the effort that we’re putting forward. I do strategically leak information at times and that’s a part of the job, but it’s not for my benefit, it’s for the ultimate goals of the case and the client.

Stacy:

So if you were advising somebody that was hiring a crisis firm, because I do think this is really, you know, and I always just, this is a Bratcher free advice, build relationships before you need them. You never want to be like, you know, having the reporter on the phone and then, my gosh, I’ve got to hurry up and find Anne Marie or another, another crisis firm to help me. But what is advice that you would give to companies or individuals that are looking to retain a crisis firm? How do you validate trust? How do you know that they’re going to let you know that there’s a subpoena like what advice do have for people who are shopping for crisis comms?

Anne Marie:

Like any referral you look for in business, go to trusted sources of people that you know you have a relationship with that you can ask, do you know someone that does this? That’s why most of our business is through word of mouth.

Most traditional PR firms have a crisis practice, but I’m of the mindset of someone parachuting in that doesn’t know anything about your business or how you operate at this sort of 11th hour doesn’t help. I think you need to ask your potential crisis manager some tough questions. And that’s not just have you worked on cases potentially like those we find ourselves in, but can you have an intelligent conversation that you feel comfortable with that person? And they give you tough advice.

Anybody that finds a crisis manager that is a yes person, I find to be a challenge. And we have long often been the second firm hired because a firm like that was hired first. And I don’t mean to disparage other people in the discipline, but you can’t tell people what they want to hear and expect they’re going to get a result that’s going to be the right result for them.

That’s just not how it works and some people don’t like that and interestingly celebrity clients are the ones that like it the least in my experience because they’re used to surrounding themselves with people that you know think the sun rises and shines out of them.

Stacy:

Yeah, that’s a tough business, tough business. I imagine it always looks exciting and sexy to be around somebody like that. And then you get into the orbit and you’re like, I don’t know. That’s a little harder than I thought.

Anne Marie:

There’s often disagreements when you’re putting together a crisis strategy and a legal strategy and that conversation and discourse is really critical to generally getting to the right strategy, the right way to handle these situations. But in your experience, Stacy, how do you navigate the who wins between comms and legal?

Stacy:

Well, I mean, let’s just say ultimately the client decides right I mean the legal objectives the PR and Reputational objectives, you know, the client has to decide what what’s their first and foremost priority? You never want to fight in front of the kids, right? And so the best relationships if there is a disagreement between legal incomes my advice is have that discussion outside of the client you want you really want your and legal team to sing from the same sheet of music for many reasons, you know, and if there is an issue of disagreement, frame it up in a constructive way, know, frame it up with curiosity.

The PR, this strategy, we really feel like we need to answer this question, but we understand that could have an impact on this claim that you’re bringing. What is your priority? And so I think that’s a more constructive way. I don’t really think there’s a who wins. I think it’s ultimately what is best for the client and what the client wants to do.

Anne Marie:

That is a great answer. You handled my framing of that question negatively so well, because it is, it’s not about winning and losing, it’s about getting the client the best outcome. And at the end of the day, whether you’re working with a general counsel that’s in-house at a company, or you’re working with outside counsel and outside comps people, it is the client’s ultimate decision maker to say, okay, we’re gonna go this path. You give them the options and you give them what the potential risks and rewards are of each. And I agree, fighting in front of the kids is never good. And I think the discourse is critical though.

You have to have those discussions because more often than not in my experience, when we’re trying to look at the other’s position from a different lens or take in these sort of challenging pieces of, I don’t think we should do it that way. Or maybe you have a point there is where you get to really all the scenario planning and all the potential pitfalls and all the potential successes. And that’s where the magic happens. Do it with decorum.

Stacy:

Yes, I’ll say, know, relationships is my big thing. you know, if I’ve had a bad experience with a firm, Tom’s firm, like, we fought all the time, they were, they didn’t understand, they didn’t have your curiosity to learn about the lawsuit. I’m not going to recommend them. I’m not going to, we’re not going to call them again. so, you know, how you work with people matters. Like, it’s not just, you know, it’s not a win. We have to collaborate. We have to work together. So

Anne Marie:

It’s the same with lawyers. There are a lot of lawyers I work with a lot and that’s great because I know their style. I know their sentiment, how they operate, how they treat their clients. At the end of the day, you’re right. It’s about the people and how we see others and it’s really funny in our business to think about the golden rule when people are usually at each other’s throats and something, but we can still be decent people along the way. And even if we’re giving you bad news or telling you tough information, it’s not being told to you because we don’t like you or think that it’s fun to do that. It’s the reality of the situation you face and handling that with some decency and delicacy is important.

Stacy:

That’s it for this episode of Reputation Nation. Thanks for joining us. We hope you found this episode useful. Have a crisis you want to dissect on a future episode? Connect with us on LinkedIn or email us at RepNat at dezenhall.com.

Anne Marie:

Want to learn more about navigating a corporate crisis or high stakes lawfare situation, or want more hot takes from us? Subscribe to Des Reads and our take at Desenhall.com. And be sure to check out Stacy’s The Legal Department podcast for more legal insights at LegalDepartmentPod.com.

Thanks for listening. See you next time in the Reputation Nation.

Reputation Nation is available on all podcast platforms!

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts

Listen on Amazon Music

Watch on YouTube