00:00:00Blake Lively's Legal Victory Explained
00:05:50PR Strategy vs Legal Headlines
00:10:47Blake Lively's Instagram Response
00:13:35Defamation 101: Legal Basics
00:22:37Famous Defamation Cases Examined
00:27:05The Real Cost of Legal Action
ABOUT THIS EPISODE
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
English
United States
IN THIS EPISODE
SHOW NOTES 🔗
TRANSCRIPT 🔗
WEBVTT
00:00:00.119 --> 00:00:02.088
You've likely heard the headlines.
00:00:03.040 --> 00:00:08.522
Breaking news a federal judge in New York dismisses Justin Baldoni's lawsuit against Blake Lively.
00:00:08.522 --> 00:00:09.744
Now it ends with us.
00:00:09.744 --> 00:00:18.913
Director and star filed that 400 million dollar lawsuit against Lively, her husband, ryan Reynolds and their publicist, alleging extortion and defamation.
00:00:18.913 --> 00:00:33.414
Lively's attorneys just said in a statement today's opinion is a total victory and a complete vindication for Blake Lively, along with those that Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties dragged into their retaliatory lawsuit, including Ryan Reynolds.
00:00:33.960 --> 00:00:40.012
Yes, a judge threw out a $400 million defamation lawsuit filed by actor and director Justin Baldoni.
00:00:40.012 --> 00:00:46.244
The defendants, of course, blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds, the New York Times, even her publicist.
00:00:46.244 --> 00:00:49.287
The ruling a total dismissal.
00:00:49.287 --> 00:00:51.789
Every defamation claim gone.
00:00:51.789 --> 00:01:00.076
But this podcast is going to share with you a thought not to get completely distracted by the legal headline.
00:01:00.076 --> 00:01:29.608
But, as your friendly neighborhood crisis manager, I'm going to tell you not to get distracted by the legal headline.
00:01:29.608 --> 00:01:30.500
This wasn't just a court case and a court ruling.
00:01:30.500 --> 00:01:32.409
This was a reputational chess move and the court happened to call checkmate on Baldoni.
00:01:32.409 --> 00:01:33.121
But who really won or lost the game?
00:01:33.121 --> 00:01:36.046
Let's talk about weaponizing defamation and what this win for Lively and is it a win still won't fix anyone involved.
00:01:36.046 --> 00:01:36.301
Hey there, welcome to the PR Breakdown.
00:01:36.320 --> 00:01:48.540
I'm your host, molly McPherson, and each week I like to break down the headlines we see and pull out a PR slash life lesson about the importance of communication.
00:01:48.540 --> 00:01:55.941
In this episode let's talk about what happens when people weaponize defamation law as a crisis response tactic.
00:01:55.941 --> 00:02:08.221
Heads up, it rarely ends well, especially in the digital age where truth travels so quickly and privilege protections travel even faster.
00:02:08.221 --> 00:02:17.608
I know so many people are talking about the legal headline, but I still want to focus on the PR headline or the subhead.
00:02:17.608 --> 00:02:29.605
I want to look at what happens when legal action and PR strategy get tangled and why defamation claims, especially from public figures, almost always end up making things worse.
00:02:29.605 --> 00:02:48.155
Now, if you're a public-facing person either in politics, publicity, an influencer, you're online, a local business owner, you're someone whose reputation could cost you if you lose it, and you've asked in the past or you think you may ask in the future should I sue for defamation?
00:02:48.155 --> 00:02:56.453
This is your episode and at the end of this episode I am going to give you a resource that you can use over and over again.
00:02:56.453 --> 00:02:58.046
But more on that later.
00:02:59.040 --> 00:03:00.807
Let's start with the facts of the case.
00:03:00.807 --> 00:03:03.280
Let's just start with some basic facts.
00:03:03.280 --> 00:03:07.532
I'm not going to spend too much time here because you've all heard about the story.
00:03:07.532 --> 00:03:17.144
Justin Baldoni accused Blake Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds and others of conspiring to destroy his reputation through false allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation.
00:03:17.144 --> 00:03:29.230
He filed the suit after Lively made formal complaints to the California Civil Rights Department and later filed a federal lawsuit in New York expanding on her claims from last December.
00:03:29.230 --> 00:03:39.272
In response, baldoni sued for defamation, but this week the court ruled that Lively's statements were protected by litigation privilege.
00:03:39.272 --> 00:03:42.100
Reynolds also protected.
00:03:42.100 --> 00:03:44.782
He relied on Lively's version of events.
00:03:44.782 --> 00:03:49.627
The New York Times also protected under the fair report privilege.
00:03:49.627 --> 00:04:09.692
This wasn't just a legal counterpunch, it was an effort to claw back control of a narrative that had already gone public.
00:04:09.692 --> 00:04:11.444
Who am I talking about?
00:04:11.444 --> 00:04:15.191
Well, both parties, blake Lively and Justin Baldoni.
00:04:15.191 --> 00:04:23.134
There's a lot of legal maneuvers going back and forth and that happens a lot in these high-profile cases.
00:04:23.134 --> 00:04:27.000
Lot in these high-profile cases.
00:04:27.021 --> 00:04:35.524
Now, if you've been following this story, you know that it starts last August at the release of the movie it Ends With Us, which also simultaneously released with Ryan Reynolds' Deadpool movie.
00:04:35.524 --> 00:04:47.093
The duo's dual movie release should have been a big moment for the couple, a big reputational moment for this A-list couple, but it wasn't.
00:04:47.093 --> 00:04:50.545
It went south spectacularly.
00:04:50.545 --> 00:04:55.725
Both premieres were delayed due to the writer's strike, so they both happened to sync together in August.
00:04:55.725 --> 00:05:07.086
August typically is a news desert of a month, but it also gives opportunity for events to happen because there isn't competition with other stories out there, other premieres.
00:05:07.086 --> 00:05:08.800
So it actually worked out in their favor.
00:05:09.300 --> 00:05:12.992
But what did not work in their favor was the negative sentiment.
00:05:12.992 --> 00:05:20.348
There was a lot of negative buzz around the movie because there were a lot of negative whispers behind the scenes.
00:05:20.348 --> 00:05:22.466
I'm not going to go too deep into those.
00:05:22.466 --> 00:05:27.201
There is plenty of internet content for you to untangle.
00:05:27.201 --> 00:05:35.826
I mentioned that I wrote an article for Forbes as a contributor back then, highlighting the social media crisis of it all.
00:05:35.826 --> 00:05:43.288
I noticed right away that things were not going well for Blake Lively and I was also spotting what they were doing with the press.
00:05:43.288 --> 00:05:45.653
There were a lot of, and I was also spotting what they were doing with the press.
00:05:45.653 --> 00:05:47.737
There were a lot of strategic titles in People magazine.
00:05:47.737 --> 00:05:50.180
There was something afoot.
00:05:50.201 --> 00:06:01.507
No one knew exactly what was going on until December late December 2024, when Lively filed the civil complaint and it swept up Baldoni.
00:06:01.507 --> 00:06:08.605
She accused him, her co-star and director on it Ends With Us of sexual harassment and a coordinated smear campaign.
00:06:08.605 --> 00:06:17.213
Her team subpoenaed phone records from Baldoni, his publicist, a producer and even his crisis manager, spanning more than two years of communication.
00:06:17.213 --> 00:06:21.406
Now some of that data had already surfaced in filings.
00:06:21.406 --> 00:06:30.048
There is speculation that a PR professional, stephanie Jones, accessed one of those phones and handed key messages to Lively's team.
00:06:30.048 --> 00:06:43.346
I think that's a very believable narrative and, even though that part hasn't been confirmed in court, it is a part of the broader narrative and one that I personally find believable.
00:06:43.346 --> 00:06:44.829
Bottom line.
00:06:44.829 --> 00:06:49.607
Lively went public with very serious claims and she had receipts to back them up.
00:06:49.607 --> 00:06:57.740
Baldoni was effectively canceled within 48 hours of this complaint being filed.
00:06:57.740 --> 00:07:06.850
Because it also happened to sync with a big story in the New York Times, that really put Baldoni in a bad light.
00:07:06.850 --> 00:07:11.271
He was dropped from his agency, the one he shares with Lively and Reynolds.
00:07:11.271 --> 00:07:13.968
The awards were being rescinded.
00:07:14.220 --> 00:07:20.350
Some people were coming out online in support of Lively, but I think at the time most people did not know what to make of it.
00:07:20.350 --> 00:07:21.826
I had my opinions.
00:07:21.826 --> 00:07:31.305
I've linked all of the content that I've made about this case since last October so you can refer to them in the show notes.
00:07:31.305 --> 00:07:31.867
Also, you.
00:07:31.867 --> 00:07:56.603
The act of defiance, I believe, reframed him Not as someone who's guilty and retreating but as someone who is willing to push back In crisis.
00:07:56.603 --> 00:08:02.687
Pr friction matters If your name is already being dismantled step by step in the headlines.
00:08:03.168 --> 00:08:07.362
Filing a suit, even a losing one, can slow the narrative down.
00:08:07.362 --> 00:08:17.783
That's what Baldoni gained by putting his story out there at a time when Lively was attacking him.
00:08:17.783 --> 00:08:27.036
It started the content and the commentary and there was overwhelming commentary favoring Baldoni.
00:08:27.036 --> 00:08:35.203
I think he lost a lot of traction from a PR perspective this week, but I think a lot of that goodwill remains.
00:08:35.203 --> 00:08:37.931
Now what it means for all three of the players.
00:08:37.931 --> 00:08:41.525
Let's just talk about the reputational impact for everyone involved.
00:08:41.947 --> 00:08:46.586
Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds well, they had a win in court, but this was no clean win.
00:08:46.586 --> 00:08:52.168
The accusations, the lawsuits, the subpoenas none of that disappears with a ruling.
00:08:52.168 --> 00:08:57.211
The story's already out and the court ruling doesn't erase the public's memory.
00:08:57.211 --> 00:08:59.184
They've regained momentum?
00:08:59.184 --> 00:09:03.509
Yes, definitely, but the shine is dulled.
00:09:03.509 --> 00:09:06.755
People have already made up their minds.
00:09:06.755 --> 00:09:24.750
There may be some people who maybe think less negatively about Reynolds and Lively, but I would be hard-pressed to find a lot of people out there at least content creators who are going to come out and say, whoa, I was 100% wrong about Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.
00:09:24.750 --> 00:09:27.193
Oh man, it was all about Justin Baldoni.
00:09:27.193 --> 00:09:32.586
If you find those people, let me know, because I want to find those people, because I would love to see what they have to say.
00:09:32.586 --> 00:09:44.046
I think most people are going to keep their minds in the same place, where it was initially either in August or definitely in December, for Lively and Reynolds.
00:09:44.642 --> 00:09:51.509
They are a couple known for brand management and likability, but this whole ordeal left a mark.
00:09:51.509 --> 00:09:56.666
How likable can you be when you're dropping stories in the press against a person?
00:09:56.666 --> 00:10:00.260
How likable are you when Baldoni is stuck in the basement during a premiere?
00:10:00.260 --> 00:10:08.451
How likable are you when all of these stories come out about you and how you treat people and they're starting to get a lot of traction online?
00:10:08.451 --> 00:10:15.187
How likable are you when you have to resort to so much PR strategy to get your story out there?
00:10:15.187 --> 00:10:23.671
Now, as for Baldoni, he lost the suit, but he showed he wasn't going to let a story be written about him without a response.
00:10:23.671 --> 00:10:27.323
That alone, in the world of reputation management, can matter.
00:10:27.323 --> 00:10:33.303
If Lively made a strategic move to go public, baldoni made a strategic move to push back.
00:10:33.303 --> 00:10:39.947
It didn't work out in court for him, but it does complicate the narrative and sometimes complexity is all.
00:10:39.947 --> 00:10:42.152
A public figure needs to stop the freefall.
00:10:42.840 --> 00:10:48.988
Okay, I'm going to break in here because at the time of this recording, blake Lively just posted to Instagram.
00:10:48.988 --> 00:10:55.511
I'm reading from her stories, so it's not in her main Instagram feed or grid, it's in her stories.
00:10:55.511 --> 00:11:02.624
Last week, I stood proudly alongside 19 organizations united in defending women's rights to speak up for their safety.
00:11:02.624 --> 00:11:09.048
Like so many others, I felt the pain of a retaliatory lawsuit, including the manufactured shame that tries to break us.
00:11:09.048 --> 00:11:13.849
While the suit against me was defeated, so many don't have the resources to fight back.
00:11:13.849 --> 00:11:22.990
I'm more resolved than ever to continue to stand for every woman's right to have a voice in protecting themselves, including their safety, their integrity, their dignity and their story.
00:11:22.990 --> 00:11:24.765
There are protections out there.
00:11:24.765 --> 00:11:28.931
Check out some of the incredible organizations below for resources and information.
00:11:28.931 --> 00:11:37.371
With love and gratitude for the many who stood by me many of you I know, many of you I don't, but I will never stop appreciating or advocating for you.
00:11:38.159 --> 00:11:41.932
B and then she has a link to these associations.
00:11:41.932 --> 00:11:55.065
I'm going to say this right off the bat she did not write this, and the reason why I can tell is because, to say this right off the bat, she did not write this, and the reason why I can tell is because there are two spaces after the period, and she doesn't do that in a lot of her posts.
00:11:55.065 --> 00:11:57.719
That's something that's usually the hallmark of someone who's older, so her publicist, leslie Sloan, probably wrote this for her.
00:11:57.719 --> 00:12:02.368
However, the message is a strong one, and one that she likely obviously believes in.
00:12:02.368 --> 00:12:03.971
It's a good statement.
00:12:03.971 --> 00:12:06.294
This is good PR.
00:12:06.294 --> 00:12:07.985
This is good PR.
00:12:08.559 --> 00:12:10.989
Without naming Justin Baldoni.
00:12:10.989 --> 00:12:20.331
She found another way to label him as someone who manufactured a campaign against her.
00:12:20.331 --> 00:12:21.826
It's interesting.
00:12:21.826 --> 00:12:24.402
It's a smart PR move, there's no doubt about that.
00:12:24.402 --> 00:12:26.163
But the question is do we believe it?
00:12:26.163 --> 00:12:27.966
This is PR.
00:12:27.966 --> 00:12:29.466
She could feel this way.
00:12:29.466 --> 00:12:32.288
I mean, who wouldn't feel this way about safety?
00:12:32.288 --> 00:12:44.417
It's a good statement and every female actress, I think every female and I think many people of all genders would agree with this and agree with that feeling that every woman will.
00:12:44.417 --> 00:12:47.678
Really every person has a right to have their voice and protecting themselves.
00:12:47.678 --> 00:12:51.162
That includes their safety and their integrity and their dignity and their story.
00:12:51.162 --> 00:12:54.203
It's a human right, not just a woman's right, but it's a human right.
00:12:54.203 --> 00:12:57.808
But this is just my personal opinion here.
00:12:57.808 --> 00:13:00.235
I still think they did the same thing to Justin Baldoni.
00:13:00.235 --> 00:13:01.357
I really do.
00:13:01.357 --> 00:13:06.124
Now, it's not to absolve Justin Baldoni from everything that happened on the set.
00:13:06.124 --> 00:13:15.226
Nobody knows truly what happened from the set, but we cannot omit the Lively Reynolds factor of what they did to Baldoni.
00:13:15.267 --> 00:13:17.351
There were other ways to manage this.
00:13:17.351 --> 00:13:28.354
They are the ones who started the legal proceedings and this is why, when you go legal, it is always almost always a PR disaster.
00:13:28.354 --> 00:13:35.701
Let's look at defamation lawsuits and why they fail and why they fail so often.
00:13:35.701 --> 00:13:51.356
Let's pause here for a quick look at defamation An important clarification because a lot of legal terms get tossed around online, especially when tensions are high in a PR reputation crisis.
00:13:51.356 --> 00:14:13.885
But this is an area that comes up in my work all the time, perhaps not at a lively Baldoni level, but I have dealt with numerous, numerous clients who come to me because of legal issues that they are currently in or they want to make and they need my advice and they need my advice for how to manage it.
00:14:13.885 --> 00:14:22.634
So, if you're someone in the online space, if you're an influencer, if you're a name, if you're someone in the public space, let's talk about this because it's important.
00:14:22.634 --> 00:14:24.184
Here's what you need to know.
00:14:24.184 --> 00:14:26.908
Defamation 101.
00:14:27.690 --> 00:14:30.313
Defamation is the umbrella term.
00:14:30.313 --> 00:14:37.333
It means someone made a false statement about you, presented it as fact, shared it with someone else and it hurt your reputation.
00:14:37.333 --> 00:14:40.735
For all my journalism majors out there, let's go back in time.
00:14:40.735 --> 00:14:42.010
Let's go back to college.
00:14:42.010 --> 00:14:45.565
New York Times versus Sullivan in 1964.
00:14:45.565 --> 00:14:51.018
Did you get this correct in your journalism ethics course in college?
00:14:51.018 --> 00:14:54.788
Get this correct in your journalism ethics course in college.
00:14:54.807 --> 00:15:01.826
It was a landmark US Supreme Court case establishing the quote actual malice standard for defamation suits involving public officials.
00:15:01.826 --> 00:15:12.115
The court ruled that public officials must prove that false statements were made important with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
00:15:12.115 --> 00:15:16.890
So this court case expanded press protections.
00:15:16.890 --> 00:15:21.405
Why that matters is because there's a lot of court cases against the press.
00:15:21.405 --> 00:15:27.479
Now I know what you're thinking, but Molly Baldoni versus Lively isn't about the press.
00:15:27.479 --> 00:15:31.355
Well, it was, if you remember what's getting lost in the headlines.
00:15:31.355 --> 00:15:33.528
The New York Times was also involved.
00:15:33.528 --> 00:15:39.854
So maybe now in journalism ethics courses they may ask the question about New York Times versus Beltone.
00:15:39.854 --> 00:15:45.229
Not likely, but they'll be discussing it ad nauseum on TikTok and social media.
00:15:45.730 --> 00:15:58.215
But let's just talk about defamation in general, because this term does get tossed around a lot and when you think of people in the public eye, it's usually against a press outfit as opposed to another person.
00:15:58.215 --> 00:16:19.214
But in my world crisis management, so often people come to me because they want to file defamation cases against people saying things about them, and it becomes my job to listen to them then explain what it takes to win a defamation case.
00:16:19.214 --> 00:16:20.817
So I'll share this.
00:16:20.817 --> 00:16:22.706
You generally have to prove four things.
00:16:22.706 --> 00:16:24.471
One, the statement was false.
00:16:24.471 --> 00:16:27.076
Two, it was communicated to a third party.
00:16:27.076 --> 00:16:30.551
Three, the person who said it was at least negligent.
00:16:30.551 --> 00:16:34.546
And four, it caused real harm to your reputation.
00:16:34.546 --> 00:16:36.971
That number four is a tricky one.
00:16:36.971 --> 00:16:41.306
You have to prove that it caused real harm to your reputation.
00:16:41.306 --> 00:17:01.908
You cannot place a dollar amount on your feelings that they were hurt or that someone said something bad about you and now you're pissed off, which is usually the reason why people bring up legal with me, because someone said something and they want to do something about it.
00:17:01.908 --> 00:17:08.614
And they want to go legal because they think that is the more powerful punch that you can make against someone.
00:17:08.614 --> 00:17:14.048
And I happen to think that this Baldoni lawsuit, even though he lost it, was tossed right now.
00:17:14.048 --> 00:17:17.115
I think it caused a lot more damage.
00:17:17.615 --> 00:17:24.818
Now let's revisit your college journalism ethics quiz, where you had to explain the difference between libel and slander.
00:17:24.818 --> 00:17:35.368
I'm going to share with you my mnemonic, my memory hack, to remember the difference between libel and slander, and this goes back to my freshman year of college.
00:17:35.368 --> 00:17:36.330
I've never forgotten this.
00:17:36.330 --> 00:17:44.634
When you think of libel, the first three letters of libel is L-I-B, the same three letters that spell library.
00:17:44.634 --> 00:17:51.873
Libraries have written and published material, but it goes beyond a library.
00:17:51.873 --> 00:17:56.327
But think articles, social posts, emails, even images.
00:17:56.327 --> 00:18:00.296
If it's fixed in some permanent form it's liable.
00:18:00.296 --> 00:18:04.595
And when public figures sue for libel they have to meet a higher bar.
00:18:04.595 --> 00:18:11.339
They must prove actual malice, that the person knew it was false or didn't care whether it was true.
00:18:11.339 --> 00:18:14.190
This is the whole piece about Ryan Reynolds.
00:18:14.190 --> 00:18:18.141
It's very, very hard to prove what Ryan Reynolds was doing.
00:18:18.141 --> 00:18:23.195
You know it's very difficult for Baldoni to prove that Ryan Reynolds was doing this to him.
00:18:23.195 --> 00:18:26.869
Now, slander here is your memory aid.
00:18:27.790 --> 00:18:32.417
Slender is a statement that's spoken.
00:18:32.417 --> 00:18:40.152
Slander begins with s and it's also a damaging statement that's said out loud to someone else that causes harm.
00:18:40.152 --> 00:18:43.925
Unlike libel, slander usually requires proof of actual harm.
00:18:43.925 --> 00:18:45.648
Hurt feelings don't count.
00:18:45.648 --> 00:18:47.270
You have to show.
00:18:47.270 --> 00:18:56.126
It costs you something your job, your clients, your credibility, ticket sales, reputation, getting jobs.
00:18:56.126 --> 00:18:58.112
Again, you have to prove it.
00:18:58.792 --> 00:19:02.230
Now, another legal maneuver that comes up a lot in my work is a cease and desist.
00:19:02.230 --> 00:19:11.335
Usually, when someone brings up lawyers with me or a legal maneuver, they always bring up a cease and desist and they can take on two forms.
00:19:11.335 --> 00:19:14.590
There's a cease and desist letter and it's just that a letter.
00:19:14.590 --> 00:19:23.478
It demands that someone stop a certain behavior or statements, and the reason why I tell people not to do it, I think 100% of the time is because it's not legally binding.
00:19:23.478 --> 00:19:30.967
It does put the other person on notice, but it also pisses them off and they turn it into a joke.
00:19:30.967 --> 00:19:40.080
If someone wants to send a cease and desist letter in my world, what I tell them what will happen is you will be mocked because of that letter, because it's not legally binding.
00:19:40.080 --> 00:19:42.073
There's nothing that they can do with it at all.
00:19:42.073 --> 00:19:43.929
It's maybe you could.
00:19:43.929 --> 00:19:49.305
You could look at it as a first shot across the bow in a reputational dispute.
00:19:49.305 --> 00:19:57.953
It shows that you'll go legal on something, but 100% of the time I've told clients don't even bother.
00:19:58.876 --> 00:20:08.227
Now there is a cease and desist order On the other hand, that's going to come from a court or agency and that one is legally binding and must be obeyed.
00:20:08.227 --> 00:20:17.814
Now I had a client recently where a cease and desist order worked because the other person did say things that were false.
00:20:17.814 --> 00:20:23.733
They posted things that were false and they were reckless and they were proven to be false.
00:20:23.733 --> 00:20:27.329
So it was very easy to put an order out there to say you have to remove everything.
00:20:27.329 --> 00:20:28.913
But the bottom line is this.
00:20:28.913 --> 00:20:42.095
If you are in a PR mess and you're thinking about legal action or you're being threatened with it, it is helpful to know the difference between a headline, a letter, a comment and a lawsuit.
00:20:42.095 --> 00:20:57.916
What I typically tell people is if emotion is driving your 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.
00:20:58.498 --> 00:21:11.391
Anyone who works with me and legal is added to the chat they often get a big pushback from me because legal, in my opinion, only exacerbates a crisis.
00:21:11.391 --> 00:21:13.335
It only makes it worse.
00:21:13.335 --> 00:21:25.484
Only go to legal if there is a reason, like a legal reason, that you can show proof that whatever was said was malicious and it was harmful and you were damaged from it.
00:21:25.484 --> 00:21:28.712
Otherwise, you're just going to make things worse.
00:21:28.712 --> 00:21:35.555
And when they come to me, that's when I start asking questions Is the statement actually false or is it just damaging?
00:21:35.555 --> 00:21:38.540
Can you prove it was knowingly malicious?
00:21:38.540 --> 00:21:39.923
What do you really want?
00:21:39.923 --> 00:21:41.393
Do you want a retraction?
00:21:41.393 --> 00:21:43.117
Do you want them to chill?
00:21:43.117 --> 00:21:44.200
Do you want control?
00:21:44.200 --> 00:21:45.391
Do you want to push back?
00:21:45.391 --> 00:21:46.773
I mean usually what it is?
00:21:46.773 --> 00:21:48.298
It's a punch.
00:21:48.298 --> 00:21:59.278
They want to hurt the other person as much as the person hurt them and then I tell them are you prepared for discovery, cross-examination and every message from your past to go public?
00:21:59.278 --> 00:22:08.178
That's something that Blake Lively is learning, particularly when it relates to Taylor Swift, and now the Taylor Swift part of her case got so messy as well.
00:22:08.178 --> 00:22:13.115
But most of all, how will it look when you sue someone for speaking out?
00:22:13.115 --> 00:22:25.786
Because if the accusation is tied to negative commentary and your first instinct is to retaliate through the courts, you've already lost the reputation battle, even if you win the legal one.
00:22:25.786 --> 00:22:33.402
In the case of Blake Lively here she did the law may be on your side, but public opinion rarely is.
00:22:34.123 --> 00:22:37.414
Now let's zoom out a bit and talk about some of the cases out there.
00:22:37.414 --> 00:22:42.163
What you're hearing from me is that it is extremely hard to win a defamation suit in the US.
00:22:42.163 --> 00:22:50.704
That's why it's very likely that Justin Baldoni knew from the get-go, his lawyer knew Friedman knew from the get-go that they weren't going to win this case.
00:22:50.704 --> 00:22:52.436
It's huge to win.
00:22:52.436 --> 00:22:58.880
It's really, really difficult to win a defamation suit in the US, especially if you're a public figure.
00:22:58.880 --> 00:23:01.584
Just ask Sarah Palin.
00:23:07.009 --> 00:23:13.270
In 2017, palin sued the New York Times over an editorial that incorrectly linked her political action committee to the 2011 mass shooting that wounded Congresswoman Gabby Giffords.
00:23:13.270 --> 00:23:20.732
The Times later issued a correction, but Palin claimed the editorial defamed her and caused her reputational harm.
00:23:20.732 --> 00:23:27.413
The initial trial was in 2022, and the federal judge and the jury both ruled in favor of the New York Times.
00:23:27.413 --> 00:23:31.040
They found that Palin had not proven actual malice.
00:23:31.040 --> 00:23:42.778
However, it should be said, during jury deliberations, the judge announced his intention to dismiss the case and some jurors reportedly learned of this before delivering their verdict, raising concerns about the process.
00:23:42.778 --> 00:23:49.961
Palin appealed, arguing that the judge's actions and exclusion of certain evidence improperly influenced the jury.
00:23:49.961 --> 00:24:00.078
Then, in August 2024, the federal appeals court agreed ordering a new trial due to procedural errors, and then the retrial began in April 2025.
00:24:00.078 --> 00:24:21.575
Now I assume that most people were not following the Palin v New York Times court case in April 2025 at the level of a Karen Reid trial, but they had the same arguments and Palin's team claimed the Times willfully ignored the facts and the verdict that came out that the New York Times was not liable.
00:24:21.595 --> 00:24:22.335
Welfare fraud scandal.
00:24:22.335 --> 00:24:26.538
Sharp accused Brett Favre of stealing of quote stealing from the poor.
00:24:26.538 --> 00:24:46.882
Brett Favre called it defamatory and the court disagreed and it was dismissed in 2023.
00:24:46.882 --> 00:24:51.961
But some people do win Johnny Depp versus Amber Heard in 2022.
00:24:51.961 --> 00:24:59.621
Depp sued Heard over a 2018 Washington Post op-ed in which she described herself as a survivor of domestic abuse.
00:24:59.621 --> 00:25:05.527
She didn't name Depp, but his team argued the implication was clear and damaging.
00:25:05.527 --> 00:25:12.824
It became a television media circus and there was a lot of accusations about manipulation with bots.
00:25:12.824 --> 00:25:17.039
The jury ultimately sided with Depp, awarding him $15 million in damages.
00:25:17.039 --> 00:25:21.155
That was later reduced, but Heard also won $2 million in a counter suit.
00:25:21.576 --> 00:25:25.644
There is Dominion Voting Systems versus Fox News in 2023.
00:25:25.644 --> 00:25:29.137
And this one wasn't just a legal win, it was a media reckoning.
00:25:29.137 --> 00:25:35.982
Dominion sued Fox News for repeatedly airing false claims that its voting machines rigged the 2020 presidential election.
00:25:35.982 --> 00:25:41.122
Dominion argued that Fox aired these claims knowing they were false.
00:25:41.122 --> 00:25:47.567
So in April 2023, fox settled the case for $787.5 million.
00:25:47.567 --> 00:25:49.953
That's the largest publicly known defamation suit.
00:25:50.355 --> 00:25:52.821
And then, lastly, we have E Jean Carroll versus Donald Trump.
00:25:52.821 --> 00:26:01.659
The writer accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her in the 90s and sued him for defamation after he publicly denied allegations and attacked her credibility.
00:26:01.659 --> 00:26:16.077
Jury found Trump liable for both sexual abuse and defamation, awarding Carroll $5 million, and in a second defamation trial in 2024, she was awarded an additional $83.3 million.
00:26:16.077 --> 00:26:18.603
So there you have your examples.
00:26:18.603 --> 00:26:24.654
But, bottom line, most defamation cases from public figures don't end in vindication.
00:26:24.654 --> 00:26:26.699
They end in exposure.
00:26:26.699 --> 00:26:36.230
The people who win either bring overwhelming proof and survive public scrutiny, or they settle before the trial to stop the bleeding.
00:26:36.230 --> 00:26:41.323
For every Depp or Carroll, there's a Palin, a Favre, a Lively.
00:26:41.529 --> 00:26:46.540
You know someone who tried to sue their way out of a crisis, only ended up deeper in it.
00:26:46.540 --> 00:26:52.160
Yes, johnny Depp may have won that court case, but where is he now?
00:26:52.160 --> 00:27:00.992
It exposed too much and that's the pattern, and it's one that I believe leaders and communicators need to recognize early.
00:27:00.992 --> 00:27:05.796
But also if you're someone whose livelihood depends on commentary't to cheerlead.
00:27:05.796 --> 00:27:07.375
Your job is to assess risk.
00:27:07.375 --> 00:27:07.836
Slow the panic.
00:27:07.836 --> 00:27:12.058
Ask the question that I ask Are you trying to win a case or reclaim credibility?
00:27:12.058 --> 00:27:40.310
File a lawsuit?
00:27:40.310 --> 00:27:40.991
Your story stops being yours.
00:27:40.991 --> 00:27:42.055
It becomes someone else's social media post.
00:27:42.055 --> 00:27:49.778
It becomes a content creator's heyday, because they're going to keep talking about it and you're going to drag yourself through a lot of negative commentary.
00:27:50.259 --> 00:27:54.792
It's true that Baldoni's name is now tied to a failed $400 million lawsuit.
00:27:54.792 --> 00:27:58.400
There are retaliation allegations and a judge's rebuke.
00:27:58.400 --> 00:28:06.261
That's not exactly brand building, but he did fight back and his story got out there.
00:28:06.261 --> 00:28:11.373
Lively and Reynolds they won this round, but it's not a clean reset.
00:28:11.373 --> 00:28:13.537
The damage is done.
00:28:13.537 --> 00:28:22.112
The story is unfolding, but Lively and Reynolds story is unfolding, but Lively and Reynolds.
00:28:22.112 --> 00:28:25.519
It would be impossible for them to ever come back to where they were prior to August 2024.
00:28:25.538 --> 00:28:31.518
The real takeaway here from someone who does this for a living don't use the legal system to fix a PR problem.
00:28:31.518 --> 00:28:35.596
It's not a strategy, it's a threat, and threats don't build trust.
00:28:35.596 --> 00:28:45.830
If you're someone who is navigating this space, either as helping someone, whether you're at an agency, whether you're helping someone or you might find yourself in it.
00:28:45.830 --> 00:28:48.836
I've created a fillable decision tree.
00:28:48.836 --> 00:28:53.791
It's one that you can use over and over again, titled Should you Sue for Defamation.
00:28:53.791 --> 00:28:55.053
It's available to paid subscribers on my sub stack.
00:28:55.053 --> 00:28:57.935
It's available to paid subscribers on my sub stack.
00:28:57.935 --> 00:29:05.082
You can find the link in the show notes or just head on over to prbreakdownmedia.
00:29:05.082 --> 00:29:08.164
That's all for this week on the podcast.
00:29:08.164 --> 00:29:09.666
Thanks so much for listening.
00:29:09.666 --> 00:29:12.796
Bye for now.
00:00:00.119 --> 00:00:02.088
You've likely heard the headlines.
00:00:03.040 --> 00:00:08.522
Breaking news a federal judge in New York dismisses Justin Baldoni's lawsuit against Blake Lively.
00:00:08.522 --> 00:00:09.744
Now it ends with us.
00:00:09.744 --> 00:00:18.913
Director and star filed that 400 million dollar lawsuit against Lively, her husband, ryan Reynolds and their publicist, alleging extortion and defamation.
00:00:18.913 --> 00:00:33.414
Lively's attorneys just said in a statement today's opinion is a total victory and a complete vindication for Blake Lively, along with those that Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties dragged into their retaliatory lawsuit, including Ryan Reynolds.
00:00:33.960 --> 00:00:40.012
Yes, a judge threw out a $400 million defamation lawsuit filed by actor and director Justin Baldoni.
00:00:40.012 --> 00:00:46.244
The defendants, of course, blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds, the New York Times, even her publicist.
00:00:46.244 --> 00:00:49.287
The ruling a total dismissal.
00:00:49.287 --> 00:00:51.789
Every defamation claim gone.
00:00:51.789 --> 00:01:00.076
But this podcast is going to share with you a thought not to get completely distracted by the legal headline.
00:01:00.076 --> 00:01:29.608
But, as your friendly neighborhood crisis manager, I'm going to tell you not to get distracted by the legal headline.
00:01:29.608 --> 00:01:30.500
This wasn't just a court case and a court ruling.
00:01:30.500 --> 00:01:32.409
This was a reputational chess move and the court happened to call checkmate on Baldoni.
00:01:32.409 --> 00:01:33.121
But who really won or lost the game?
00:01:33.121 --> 00:01:36.046
Let's talk about weaponizing defamation and what this win for Lively and is it a win still won't fix anyone involved.
00:01:36.046 --> 00:01:36.301
Hey there, welcome to the PR Breakdown.
00:01:36.320 --> 00:01:48.540
I'm your host, molly McPherson, and each week I like to break down the headlines we see and pull out a PR slash life lesson about the importance of communication.
00:01:48.540 --> 00:01:55.941
In this episode let's talk about what happens when people weaponize defamation law as a crisis response tactic.
00:01:55.941 --> 00:02:08.221
Heads up, it rarely ends well, especially in the digital age where truth travels so quickly and privilege protections travel even faster.
00:02:08.221 --> 00:02:17.608
I know so many people are talking about the legal headline, but I still want to focus on the PR headline or the subhead.
00:02:17.608 --> 00:02:29.605
I want to look at what happens when legal action and PR strategy get tangled and why defamation claims, especially from public figures, almost always end up making things worse.
00:02:29.605 --> 00:02:48.155
Now, if you're a public-facing person either in politics, publicity, an influencer, you're online, a local business owner, you're someone whose reputation could cost you if you lose it, and you've asked in the past or you think you may ask in the future should I sue for defamation?
00:02:48.155 --> 00:02:56.453
This is your episode and at the end of this episode I am going to give you a resource that you can use over and over again.
00:02:56.453 --> 00:02:58.046
But more on that later.
00:02:59.040 --> 00:03:00.807
Let's start with the facts of the case.
00:03:00.807 --> 00:03:03.280
Let's just start with some basic facts.
00:03:03.280 --> 00:03:07.532
I'm not going to spend too much time here because you've all heard about the story.
00:03:07.532 --> 00:03:17.144
Justin Baldoni accused Blake Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds and others of conspiring to destroy his reputation through false allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation.
00:03:17.144 --> 00:03:29.230
He filed the suit after Lively made formal complaints to the California Civil Rights Department and later filed a federal lawsuit in New York expanding on her claims from last December.
00:03:29.230 --> 00:03:39.272
In response, baldoni sued for defamation, but this week the court ruled that Lively's statements were protected by litigation privilege.
00:03:39.272 --> 00:03:42.100
Reynolds also protected.
00:03:42.100 --> 00:03:44.782
He relied on Lively's version of events.
00:03:44.782 --> 00:03:49.627
The New York Times also protected under the fair report privilege.
00:03:49.627 --> 00:04:09.692
This wasn't just a legal counterpunch, it was an effort to claw back control of a narrative that had already gone public.
00:04:09.692 --> 00:04:11.444
Who am I talking about?
00:04:11.444 --> 00:04:15.191
Well, both parties, blake Lively and Justin Baldoni.
00:04:15.191 --> 00:04:23.134
There's a lot of legal maneuvers going back and forth and that happens a lot in these high-profile cases.
00:04:23.134 --> 00:04:27.000
Lot in these high-profile cases.
00:04:27.021 --> 00:04:35.524
Now, if you've been following this story, you know that it starts last August at the release of the movie it Ends With Us, which also simultaneously released with Ryan Reynolds' Deadpool movie.
00:04:35.524 --> 00:04:47.093
The duo's dual movie release should have been a big moment for the couple, a big reputational moment for this A-list couple, but it wasn't.
00:04:47.093 --> 00:04:50.545
It went south spectacularly.
00:04:50.545 --> 00:04:55.725
Both premieres were delayed due to the writer's strike, so they both happened to sync together in August.
00:04:55.725 --> 00:05:07.086
August typically is a news desert of a month, but it also gives opportunity for events to happen because there isn't competition with other stories out there, other premieres.
00:05:07.086 --> 00:05:08.800
So it actually worked out in their favor.
00:05:09.300 --> 00:05:12.992
But what did not work in their favor was the negative sentiment.
00:05:12.992 --> 00:05:20.348
There was a lot of negative buzz around the movie because there were a lot of negative whispers behind the scenes.
00:05:20.348 --> 00:05:22.466
I'm not going to go too deep into those.
00:05:22.466 --> 00:05:27.201
There is plenty of internet content for you to untangle.
00:05:27.201 --> 00:05:35.826
I mentioned that I wrote an article for Forbes as a contributor back then, highlighting the social media crisis of it all.
00:05:35.826 --> 00:05:43.288
I noticed right away that things were not going well for Blake Lively and I was also spotting what they were doing with the press.
00:05:43.288 --> 00:05:45.653
There were a lot of, and I was also spotting what they were doing with the press.
00:05:45.653 --> 00:05:47.737
There were a lot of strategic titles in People magazine.
00:05:47.737 --> 00:05:50.180
There was something afoot.
00:05:50.201 --> 00:06:01.507
No one knew exactly what was going on until December late December 2024, when Lively filed the civil complaint and it swept up Baldoni.
00:06:01.507 --> 00:06:08.605
She accused him, her co-star and director on it Ends With Us of sexual harassment and a coordinated smear campaign.
00:06:08.605 --> 00:06:17.213
Her team subpoenaed phone records from Baldoni, his publicist, a producer and even his crisis manager, spanning more than two years of communication.
00:06:17.213 --> 00:06:21.406
Now some of that data had already surfaced in filings.
00:06:21.406 --> 00:06:30.048
There is speculation that a PR professional, stephanie Jones, accessed one of those phones and handed key messages to Lively's team.
00:06:30.048 --> 00:06:43.346
I think that's a very believable narrative and, even though that part hasn't been confirmed in court, it is a part of the broader narrative and one that I personally find believable.
00:06:43.346 --> 00:06:44.829
Bottom line.
00:06:44.829 --> 00:06:49.607
Lively went public with very serious claims and she had receipts to back them up.
00:06:49.607 --> 00:06:57.740
Baldoni was effectively canceled within 48 hours of this complaint being filed.
00:06:57.740 --> 00:07:06.850
Because it also happened to sync with a big story in the New York Times, that really put Baldoni in a bad light.
00:07:06.850 --> 00:07:11.271
He was dropped from his agency, the one he shares with Lively and Reynolds.
00:07:11.271 --> 00:07:13.968
The awards were being rescinded.
00:07:14.220 --> 00:07:20.350
Some people were coming out online in support of Lively, but I think at the time most people did not know what to make of it.
00:07:20.350 --> 00:07:21.826
I had my opinions.
00:07:21.826 --> 00:07:31.305
I've linked all of the content that I've made about this case since last October so you can refer to them in the show notes.
00:07:31.305 --> 00:07:31.867
Also, you.
00:07:31.867 --> 00:07:56.603
The act of defiance, I believe, reframed him Not as someone who's guilty and retreating but as someone who is willing to push back In crisis.
00:07:56.603 --> 00:08:02.687
Pr friction matters If your name is already being dismantled step by step in the headlines.
00:08:03.168 --> 00:08:07.362
Filing a suit, even a losing one, can slow the narrative down.
00:08:07.362 --> 00:08:17.783
That's what Baldoni gained by putting his story out there at a time when Lively was attacking him.
00:08:17.783 --> 00:08:27.036
It started the content and the commentary and there was overwhelming commentary favoring Baldoni.
00:08:27.036 --> 00:08:35.203
I think he lost a lot of traction from a PR perspective this week, but I think a lot of that goodwill remains.
00:08:35.203 --> 00:08:37.931
Now what it means for all three of the players.
00:08:37.931 --> 00:08:41.525
Let's just talk about the reputational impact for everyone involved.
00:08:41.947 --> 00:08:46.586
Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds well, they had a win in court, but this was no clean win.
00:08:46.586 --> 00:08:52.168
The accusations, the lawsuits, the subpoenas none of that disappears with a ruling.
00:08:52.168 --> 00:08:57.211
The story's already out and the court ruling doesn't erase the public's memory.
00:08:57.211 --> 00:08:59.184
They've regained momentum?
00:08:59.184 --> 00:09:03.509
Yes, definitely, but the shine is dulled.
00:09:03.509 --> 00:09:06.755
People have already made up their minds.
00:09:06.755 --> 00:09:24.750
There may be some people who maybe think less negatively about Reynolds and Lively, but I would be hard-pressed to find a lot of people out there at least content creators who are going to come out and say, whoa, I was 100% wrong about Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.
00:09:24.750 --> 00:09:27.193
Oh man, it was all about Justin Baldoni.
00:09:27.193 --> 00:09:32.586
If you find those people, let me know, because I want to find those people, because I would love to see what they have to say.
00:09:32.586 --> 00:09:44.046
I think most people are going to keep their minds in the same place, where it was initially either in August or definitely in December, for Lively and Reynolds.
00:09:44.642 --> 00:09:51.509
They are a couple known for brand management and likability, but this whole ordeal left a mark.
00:09:51.509 --> 00:09:56.666
How likable can you be when you're dropping stories in the press against a person?
00:09:56.666 --> 00:10:00.260
How likable are you when Baldoni is stuck in the basement during a premiere?
00:10:00.260 --> 00:10:08.451
How likable are you when all of these stories come out about you and how you treat people and they're starting to get a lot of traction online?
00:10:08.451 --> 00:10:15.187
How likable are you when you have to resort to so much PR strategy to get your story out there?
00:10:15.187 --> 00:10:23.671
Now, as for Baldoni, he lost the suit, but he showed he wasn't going to let a story be written about him without a response.
00:10:23.671 --> 00:10:27.323
That alone, in the world of reputation management, can matter.
00:10:27.323 --> 00:10:33.303
If Lively made a strategic move to go public, baldoni made a strategic move to push back.
00:10:33.303 --> 00:10:39.947
It didn't work out in court for him, but it does complicate the narrative and sometimes complexity is all.
00:10:39.947 --> 00:10:42.152
A public figure needs to stop the freefall.
00:10:42.840 --> 00:10:48.988
Okay, I'm going to break in here because at the time of this recording, blake Lively just posted to Instagram.
00:10:48.988 --> 00:10:55.511
I'm reading from her stories, so it's not in her main Instagram feed or grid, it's in her stories.
00:10:55.511 --> 00:11:02.624
Last week, I stood proudly alongside 19 organizations united in defending women's rights to speak up for their safety.
00:11:02.624 --> 00:11:09.048
Like so many others, I felt the pain of a retaliatory lawsuit, including the manufactured shame that tries to break us.
00:11:09.048 --> 00:11:13.849
While the suit against me was defeated, so many don't have the resources to fight back.
00:11:13.849 --> 00:11:22.990
I'm more resolved than ever to continue to stand for every woman's right to have a voice in protecting themselves, including their safety, their integrity, their dignity and their story.
00:11:22.990 --> 00:11:24.765
There are protections out there.
00:11:24.765 --> 00:11:28.931
Check out some of the incredible organizations below for resources and information.
00:11:28.931 --> 00:11:37.371
With love and gratitude for the many who stood by me many of you I know, many of you I don't, but I will never stop appreciating or advocating for you.
00:11:38.159 --> 00:11:41.932
B and then she has a link to these associations.
00:11:41.932 --> 00:11:55.065
I'm going to say this right off the bat she did not write this, and the reason why I can tell is because, to say this right off the bat, she did not write this, and the reason why I can tell is because there are two spaces after the period, and she doesn't do that in a lot of her posts.
00:11:55.065 --> 00:11:57.719
That's something that's usually the hallmark of someone who's older, so her publicist, leslie Sloan, probably wrote this for her.
00:11:57.719 --> 00:12:02.368
However, the message is a strong one, and one that she likely obviously believes in.
00:12:02.368 --> 00:12:03.971
It's a good statement.
00:12:03.971 --> 00:12:06.294
This is good PR.
00:12:06.294 --> 00:12:07.985
This is good PR.
00:12:08.559 --> 00:12:10.989
Without naming Justin Baldoni.
00:12:10.989 --> 00:12:20.331
She found another way to label him as someone who manufactured a campaign against her.
00:12:20.331 --> 00:12:21.826
It's interesting.
00:12:21.826 --> 00:12:24.402
It's a smart PR move, there's no doubt about that.
00:12:24.402 --> 00:12:26.163
But the question is do we believe it?
00:12:26.163 --> 00:12:27.966
This is PR.
00:12:27.966 --> 00:12:29.466
She could feel this way.
00:12:29.466 --> 00:12:32.288
I mean, who wouldn't feel this way about safety?
00:12:32.288 --> 00:12:44.417
It's a good statement and every female actress, I think every female and I think many people of all genders would agree with this and agree with that feeling that every woman will.
00:12:44.417 --> 00:12:47.678
Really every person has a right to have their voice and protecting themselves.
00:12:47.678 --> 00:12:51.162
That includes their safety and their integrity and their dignity and their story.
00:12:51.162 --> 00:12:54.203
It's a human right, not just a woman's right, but it's a human right.
00:12:54.203 --> 00:12:57.808
But this is just my personal opinion here.
00:12:57.808 --> 00:13:00.235
I still think they did the same thing to Justin Baldoni.
00:13:00.235 --> 00:13:01.357
I really do.
00:13:01.357 --> 00:13:06.124
Now, it's not to absolve Justin Baldoni from everything that happened on the set.
00:13:06.124 --> 00:13:15.226
Nobody knows truly what happened from the set, but we cannot omit the Lively Reynolds factor of what they did to Baldoni.
00:13:15.267 --> 00:13:17.351
There were other ways to manage this.
00:13:17.351 --> 00:13:28.354
They are the ones who started the legal proceedings and this is why, when you go legal, it is always almost always a PR disaster.
00:13:28.354 --> 00:13:35.701
Let's look at defamation lawsuits and why they fail and why they fail so often.
00:13:35.701 --> 00:13:51.356
Let's pause here for a quick look at defamation An important clarification because a lot of legal terms get tossed around online, especially when tensions are high in a PR reputation crisis.
00:13:51.356 --> 00:14:13.885
But this is an area that comes up in my work all the time, perhaps not at a lively Baldoni level, but I have dealt with numerous, numerous clients who come to me because of legal issues that they are currently in or they want to make and they need my advice and they need my advice for how to manage it.
00:14:13.885 --> 00:14:22.634
So, if you're someone in the online space, if you're an influencer, if you're a name, if you're someone in the public space, let's talk about this because it's important.
00:14:22.634 --> 00:14:24.184
Here's what you need to know.
00:14:24.184 --> 00:14:26.908
Defamation 101.
00:14:27.690 --> 00:14:30.313
Defamation is the umbrella term.
00:14:30.313 --> 00:14:37.333
It means someone made a false statement about you, presented it as fact, shared it with someone else and it hurt your reputation.
00:14:37.333 --> 00:14:40.735
For all my journalism majors out there, let's go back in time.
00:14:40.735 --> 00:14:42.010
Let's go back to college.
00:14:42.010 --> 00:14:45.565
New York Times versus Sullivan in 1964.
00:14:45.565 --> 00:14:51.018
Did you get this correct in your journalism ethics course in college?
00:14:51.018 --> 00:14:54.788
Get this correct in your journalism ethics course in college.
00:14:54.807 --> 00:15:01.826
It was a landmark US Supreme Court case establishing the quote actual malice standard for defamation suits involving public officials.
00:15:01.826 --> 00:15:12.115
The court ruled that public officials must prove that false statements were made important with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
00:15:12.115 --> 00:15:16.890
So this court case expanded press protections.
00:15:16.890 --> 00:15:21.405
Why that matters is because there's a lot of court cases against the press.
00:15:21.405 --> 00:15:27.479
Now I know what you're thinking, but Molly Baldoni versus Lively isn't about the press.
00:15:27.479 --> 00:15:31.355
Well, it was, if you remember what's getting lost in the headlines.
00:15:31.355 --> 00:15:33.528
The New York Times was also involved.
00:15:33.528 --> 00:15:39.854
So maybe now in journalism ethics courses they may ask the question about New York Times versus Beltone.
00:15:39.854 --> 00:15:45.229
Not likely, but they'll be discussing it ad nauseum on TikTok and social media.
00:15:45.730 --> 00:15:58.215
But let's just talk about defamation in general, because this term does get tossed around a lot and when you think of people in the public eye, it's usually against a press outfit as opposed to another person.
00:15:58.215 --> 00:16:19.214
But in my world crisis management, so often people come to me because they want to file defamation cases against people saying things about them, and it becomes my job to listen to them then explain what it takes to win a defamation case.
00:16:19.214 --> 00:16:20.817
So I'll share this.
00:16:20.817 --> 00:16:22.706
You generally have to prove four things.
00:16:22.706 --> 00:16:24.471
One, the statement was false.
00:16:24.471 --> 00:16:27.076
Two, it was communicated to a third party.
00:16:27.076 --> 00:16:30.551
Three, the person who said it was at least negligent.
00:16:30.551 --> 00:16:34.546
And four, it caused real harm to your reputation.
00:16:34.546 --> 00:16:36.971
That number four is a tricky one.
00:16:36.971 --> 00:16:41.306
You have to prove that it caused real harm to your reputation.
00:16:41.306 --> 00:17:01.908
You cannot place a dollar amount on your feelings that they were hurt or that someone said something bad about you and now you're pissed off, which is usually the reason why people bring up legal with me, because someone said something and they want to do something about it.
00:17:01.908 --> 00:17:08.614
And they want to go legal because they think that is the more powerful punch that you can make against someone.
00:17:08.614 --> 00:17:14.048
And I happen to think that this Baldoni lawsuit, even though he lost it, was tossed right now.
00:17:14.048 --> 00:17:17.115
I think it caused a lot more damage.
00:17:17.615 --> 00:17:24.818
Now let's revisit your college journalism ethics quiz, where you had to explain the difference between libel and slander.
00:17:24.818 --> 00:17:35.368
I'm going to share with you my mnemonic, my memory hack, to remember the difference between libel and slander, and this goes back to my freshman year of college.
00:17:35.368 --> 00:17:36.330
I've never forgotten this.
00:17:36.330 --> 00:17:44.634
When you think of libel, the first three letters of libel is L-I-B, the same three letters that spell library.
00:17:44.634 --> 00:17:51.873
Libraries have written and published material, but it goes beyond a library.
00:17:51.873 --> 00:17:56.327
But think articles, social posts, emails, even images.
00:17:56.327 --> 00:18:00.296
If it's fixed in some permanent form it's liable.
00:18:00.296 --> 00:18:04.595
And when public figures sue for libel they have to meet a higher bar.
00:18:04.595 --> 00:18:11.339
They must prove actual malice, that the person knew it was false or didn't care whether it was true.
00:18:11.339 --> 00:18:14.190
This is the whole piece about Ryan Reynolds.
00:18:14.190 --> 00:18:18.141
It's very, very hard to prove what Ryan Reynolds was doing.
00:18:18.141 --> 00:18:23.195
You know it's very difficult for Baldoni to prove that Ryan Reynolds was doing this to him.
00:18:23.195 --> 00:18:26.869
Now, slander here is your memory aid.
00:18:27.790 --> 00:18:32.417
Slender is a statement that's spoken.
00:18:32.417 --> 00:18:40.152
Slander begins with s and it's also a damaging statement that's said out loud to someone else that causes harm.
00:18:40.152 --> 00:18:43.925
Unlike libel, slander usually requires proof of actual harm.
00:18:43.925 --> 00:18:45.648
Hurt feelings don't count.
00:18:45.648 --> 00:18:47.270
You have to show.
00:18:47.270 --> 00:18:56.126
It costs you something your job, your clients, your credibility, ticket sales, reputation, getting jobs.
00:18:56.126 --> 00:18:58.112
Again, you have to prove it.
00:18:58.792 --> 00:19:02.230
Now, another legal maneuver that comes up a lot in my work is a cease and desist.
00:19:02.230 --> 00:19:11.335
Usually, when someone brings up lawyers with me or a legal maneuver, they always bring up a cease and desist and they can take on two forms.
00:19:11.335 --> 00:19:14.590
There's a cease and desist letter and it's just that a letter.
00:19:14.590 --> 00:19:23.478
It demands that someone stop a certain behavior or statements, and the reason why I tell people not to do it, I think 100% of the time is because it's not legally binding.
00:19:23.478 --> 00:19:30.967
It does put the other person on notice, but it also pisses them off and they turn it into a joke.
00:19:30.967 --> 00:19:40.080
If someone wants to send a cease and desist letter in my world, what I tell them what will happen is you will be mocked because of that letter, because it's not legally binding.
00:19:40.080 --> 00:19:42.073
There's nothing that they can do with it at all.
00:19:42.073 --> 00:19:43.929
It's maybe you could.
00:19:43.929 --> 00:19:49.305
You could look at it as a first shot across the bow in a reputational dispute.
00:19:49.305 --> 00:19:57.953
It shows that you'll go legal on something, but 100% of the time I've told clients don't even bother.
00:19:58.876 --> 00:20:08.227
Now there is a cease and desist order On the other hand, that's going to come from a court or agency and that one is legally binding and must be obeyed.
00:20:08.227 --> 00:20:17.814
Now I had a client recently where a cease and desist order worked because the other person did say things that were false.
00:20:17.814 --> 00:20:23.733
They posted things that were false and they were reckless and they were proven to be false.
00:20:23.733 --> 00:20:27.329
So it was very easy to put an order out there to say you have to remove everything.
00:20:27.329 --> 00:20:28.913
But the bottom line is this.
00:20:28.913 --> 00:20:42.095
If you are in a PR mess and you're thinking about legal action or you're being threatened with it, it is helpful to know the difference between a headline, a letter, a comment and a lawsuit.
00:20:42.095 --> 00:20:57.916
What I typically tell people is if emotion is driving your 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.
00:20:58.498 --> 00:21:11.391
Anyone who works with me and legal is added to the chat they often get a big pushback from me because legal, in my opinion, only exacerbates a crisis.
00:21:11.391 --> 00:21:13.335
It only makes it worse.
00:21:13.335 --> 00:21:25.484
Only go to legal if there is a reason, like a legal reason, that you can show proof that whatever was said was malicious and it was harmful and you were damaged from it.
00:21:25.484 --> 00:21:28.712
Otherwise, you're just going to make things worse.
00:21:28.712 --> 00:21:35.555
And when they come to me, that's when I start asking questions Is the statement actually false or is it just damaging?
00:21:35.555 --> 00:21:38.540
Can you prove it was knowingly malicious?
00:21:38.540 --> 00:21:39.923
What do you really want?
00:21:39.923 --> 00:21:41.393
Do you want a retraction?
00:21:41.393 --> 00:21:43.117
Do you want them to chill?
00:21:43.117 --> 00:21:44.200
Do you want control?
00:21:44.200 --> 00:21:45.391
Do you want to push back?
00:21:45.391 --> 00:21:46.773
I mean usually what it is?
00:21:46.773 --> 00:21:48.298
It's a punch.
00:21:48.298 --> 00:21:59.278
They want to hurt the other person as much as the person hurt them and then I tell them are you prepared for discovery, cross-examination and every message from your past to go public?
00:21:59.278 --> 00:22:08.178
That's something that Blake Lively is learning, particularly when it relates to Taylor Swift, and now the Taylor Swift part of her case got so messy as well.
00:22:08.178 --> 00:22:13.115
But most of all, how will it look when you sue someone for speaking out?
00:22:13.115 --> 00:22:25.786
Because if the accusation is tied to negative commentary and your first instinct is to retaliate through the courts, you've already lost the reputation battle, even if you win the legal one.
00:22:25.786 --> 00:22:33.402
In the case of Blake Lively here she did the law may be on your side, but public opinion rarely is.
00:22:34.123 --> 00:22:37.414
Now let's zoom out a bit and talk about some of the cases out there.
00:22:37.414 --> 00:22:42.163
What you're hearing from me is that it is extremely hard to win a defamation suit in the US.
00:22:42.163 --> 00:22:50.704
That's why it's very likely that Justin Baldoni knew from the get-go, his lawyer knew Friedman knew from the get-go that they weren't going to win this case.
00:22:50.704 --> 00:22:52.436
It's huge to win.
00:22:52.436 --> 00:22:58.880
It's really, really difficult to win a defamation suit in the US, especially if you're a public figure.
00:22:58.880 --> 00:23:01.584
Just ask Sarah Palin.
00:23:07.009 --> 00:23:13.270
In 2017, palin sued the New York Times over an editorial that incorrectly linked her political action committee to the 2011 mass shooting that wounded Congresswoman Gabby Giffords.
00:23:13.270 --> 00:23:20.732
The Times later issued a correction, but Palin claimed the editorial defamed her and caused her reputational harm.
00:23:20.732 --> 00:23:27.413
The initial trial was in 2022, and the federal judge and the jury both ruled in favor of the New York Times.
00:23:27.413 --> 00:23:31.040
They found that Palin had not proven actual malice.
00:23:31.040 --> 00:23:42.778
However, it should be said, during jury deliberations, the judge announced his intention to dismiss the case and some jurors reportedly learned of this before delivering their verdict, raising concerns about the process.
00:23:42.778 --> 00:23:49.961
Palin appealed, arguing that the judge's actions and exclusion of certain evidence improperly influenced the jury.
00:23:49.961 --> 00:24:00.078
Then, in August 2024, the federal appeals court agreed ordering a new trial due to procedural errors, and then the retrial began in April 2025.
00:24:00.078 --> 00:24:21.575
Now I assume that most people were not following the Palin v New York Times court case in April 2025 at the level of a Karen Reid trial, but they had the same arguments and Palin's team claimed the Times willfully ignored the facts and the verdict that came out that the New York Times was not liable.
00:24:21.595 --> 00:24:22.335
Welfare fraud scandal.
00:24:22.335 --> 00:24:26.538
Sharp accused Brett Favre of stealing of quote stealing from the poor.
00:24:26.538 --> 00:24:46.882
Brett Favre called it defamatory and the court disagreed and it was dismissed in 2023.
00:24:46.882 --> 00:24:51.961
But some people do win Johnny Depp versus Amber Heard in 2022.
00:24:51.961 --> 00:24:59.621
Depp sued Heard over a 2018 Washington Post op-ed in which she described herself as a survivor of domestic abuse.
00:24:59.621 --> 00:25:05.527
She didn't name Depp, but his team argued the implication was clear and damaging.
00:25:05.527 --> 00:25:12.824
It became a television media circus and there was a lot of accusations about manipulation with bots.
00:25:12.824 --> 00:25:17.039
The jury ultimately sided with Depp, awarding him $15 million in damages.
00:25:17.039 --> 00:25:21.155
That was later reduced, but Heard also won $2 million in a counter suit.
00:25:21.576 --> 00:25:25.644
There is Dominion Voting Systems versus Fox News in 2023.
00:25:25.644 --> 00:25:29.137
And this one wasn't just a legal win, it was a media reckoning.
00:25:29.137 --> 00:25:35.982
Dominion sued Fox News for repeatedly airing false claims that its voting machines rigged the 2020 presidential election.
00:25:35.982 --> 00:25:41.122
Dominion argued that Fox aired these claims knowing they were false.
00:25:41.122 --> 00:25:47.567
So in April 2023, fox settled the case for $787.5 million.
00:25:47.567 --> 00:25:49.953
That's the largest publicly known defamation suit.
00:25:50.355 --> 00:25:52.821
And then, lastly, we have E Jean Carroll versus Donald Trump.
00:25:52.821 --> 00:26:01.659
The writer accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her in the 90s and sued him for defamation after he publicly denied allegations and attacked her credibility.
00:26:01.659 --> 00:26:16.077
Jury found Trump liable for both sexual abuse and defamation, awarding Carroll $5 million, and in a second defamation trial in 2024, she was awarded an additional $83.3 million.
00:26:16.077 --> 00:26:18.603
So there you have your examples.
00:26:18.603 --> 00:26:24.654
But, bottom line, most defamation cases from public figures don't end in vindication.
00:26:24.654 --> 00:26:26.699
They end in exposure.
00:26:26.699 --> 00:26:36.230
The people who win either bring overwhelming proof and survive public scrutiny, or they settle before the trial to stop the bleeding.
00:26:36.230 --> 00:26:41.323
For every Depp or Carroll, there's a Palin, a Favre, a Lively.
00:26:41.529 --> 00:26:46.540
You know someone who tried to sue their way out of a crisis, only ended up deeper in it.
00:26:46.540 --> 00:26:52.160
Yes, johnny Depp may have won that court case, but where is he now?
00:26:52.160 --> 00:27:00.992
It exposed too much and that's the pattern, and it's one that I believe leaders and communicators need to recognize early.
00:27:00.992 --> 00:27:05.796
But also if you're someone whose livelihood depends on commentary't to cheerlead.
00:27:05.796 --> 00:27:07.375
Your job is to assess risk.
00:27:07.375 --> 00:27:07.836
Slow the panic.
00:27:07.836 --> 00:27:12.058
Ask the question that I ask Are you trying to win a case or reclaim credibility?
00:27:12.058 --> 00:27:40.310
File a lawsuit?
00:27:40.310 --> 00:27:40.991
Your story stops being yours.
00:27:40.991 --> 00:27:42.055
It becomes someone else's social media post.
00:27:42.055 --> 00:27:49.778
It becomes a content creator's heyday, because they're going to keep talking about it and you're going to drag yourself through a lot of negative commentary.
00:27:50.259 --> 00:27:54.792
It's true that Baldoni's name is now tied to a failed $400 million lawsuit.
00:27:54.792 --> 00:27:58.400
There are retaliation allegations and a judge's rebuke.
00:27:58.400 --> 00:28:06.261
That's not exactly brand building, but he did fight back and his story got out there.
00:28:06.261 --> 00:28:11.373
Lively and Reynolds they won this round, but it's not a clean reset.
00:28:11.373 --> 00:28:13.537
The damage is done.
00:28:13.537 --> 00:28:22.112
The story is unfolding, but Lively and Reynolds story is unfolding, but Lively and Reynolds.
00:28:22.112 --> 00:28:25.519
It would be impossible for them to ever come back to where they were prior to August 2024.
00:28:25.538 --> 00:28:31.518
The real takeaway here from someone who does this for a living don't use the legal system to fix a PR problem.
00:28:31.518 --> 00:28:35.596
It's not a strategy, it's a threat, and threats don't build trust.
00:28:35.596 --> 00:28:45.830
If you're someone who is navigating this space, either as helping someone, whether you're at an agency, whether you're helping someone or you might find yourself in it.
00:28:45.830 --> 00:28:48.836
I've created a fillable decision tree.
00:28:48.836 --> 00:28:53.791
It's one that you can use over and over again, titled Should you Sue for Defamation.
00:28:53.791 --> 00:28:55.053
It's available to paid subscribers on my sub stack.
00:28:55.053 --> 00:28:57.935
It's available to paid subscribers on my sub stack.
00:28:57.935 --> 00:29:05.082
You can find the link in the show notes or just head on over to prbreakdownmedia.
00:29:05.082 --> 00:29:08.164
That's all for this week on the podcast.
00:29:08.164 --> 00:29:09.666
Thanks so much for listening.
00:29:09.666 --> 00:29:12.796
Bye for now.
SEARCH PAST EPISODES
Search past episodes of The PR Breakdown with Molly McPherson.
Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from www.mollymcpherson.com, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
EDIT
Thank you for helping to keep the podcast database up to date.
