Subpoena Season Heats Up
▼ Summary
– Blake Lively sued costar Justin Baldoni for sexual harassment and retaliation, then subpoenaed influencers like Perez Hilton who she alleged were part of a retaliatory smear campaign against her.
– Influencers including Perez Hilton, Candace Owens, and Andy Signore have embraced the legal attention, creating viral content and framing the case as a battle between creators and celebrities.
– The case raises questions about legal protections for influencers versus journalists, with creators invoking reporter’s privilege while Lively’s team seeks communications to prove coordinated retaliation.
– Social media platforms have amplified the drama, with TikTok and YouTube creators generating millions of views through commentary, legal analysis, and AI-generated content favoring Baldoni over Lively.
– This legal battle mirrors patterns from Depp v. Heard, where public opinion was swayed through social media campaigns and crisis PR strategies targeting public perception over legal evidence.
The ongoing legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni continues to captivate social media, fueled by influencers dissecting every development in the high-profile case. The dispute centers on Lively’s allegations of sexual harassment and a retaliatory smear campaign, drawing parallels to past celebrity lawsuits that reshaped public discourse.
When Perez Hilton announced he had been subpoenaed by Lively’s legal team, his reaction was anything but subdued. In a YouTube video uploaded July 1st, the controversial gossip blogger stretched out the word “allegedly” with theatrical flair, then broke into laughter. “I love this,” he squealed, treating the legal summons as content gold. Hilton framed the situation as an opportunity, declaring nothing would make him happier than testifying. His response highlighted how some creators view legal entanglements not as burdens, but as engagement opportunities.
Hilton’s career has evolved from early 2000s blogging fame to his current status amid a transformed digital landscape. Where he once dominated celebrity gossip, now countless creators operate within algorithms that amplify controversy. He insists on being recognized as a journalist, arguing in legal filings that his reporting deserves protection regardless of labels. Representing himself initially, Hilton disclosed using ChatGPT to assist with court documents while vowing to verify their accuracy.
Lively’s legal strategy has cast a remarkably wide net, targeting over 100 content creators according to reports. Subpoenas have been served to platforms like X and YouTube seeking communications and identifying information from accounts ranging from prominent figures like Candace Owens to users with merely two dozen followers. Owens celebrated her subpoena in a YouTube video titled “Dreams come true,” while fellow creator Andy Signore initially responded more solemnly before participating in a prank involving a fake subpoena at a live event.
These legal maneuvers could establish significant precedents regarding the distinction between influencers and journalists. Similar to cases involving Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion, Lively’s lawsuit alleges creators participated in an organized campaign to damage her reputation after she reported workplace misconduct. The case stems from tensions during production of the 2024 film adaptation of Colleen Hoover’s novel “It Ends With Us,” where Baldoni directed and co-starred with Lively.
Despite the film earning over $350 million globally, the production was marred by controversy from its inception. Fans questioned casting decisions, criticism mounted over Lively’s press tour comments, and past incidents from her career resurfaced. The situation escalated when The New York Times published an investigation detailing Lively’s allegations that Baldoni funded a smear campaign against her, supported by billionaire Steve Sarowitz. Baldoni subsequently filed a $250 million defamation suit against the Times, with Lively filing her own lawsuit hours later.
Public opinion has largely favored Baldoni, particularly on social media platforms. University of Georgia media studies professor Jessica Maddox noted receiving predominantly pro-Baldoni content on her TikTok feed, estimating a 70-30 split in his favor. This dynamic echoes the social media response during Johnny Depp’s defamation case against Amber Heard, where most creators sided with the male actor.
Text messages from crisis publicist Melissa Nathan, who worked with both Depp and Baldoni, have become central to Lively’s case. In group chats reviewed by the court, participants discussed reaching out to specific creators including Hilton and Signore. One message asked “How do we get to Perez?” while another described Signore’s YouTube channel Popcorned Planet as a potential ally.
Signore’s career trajectory reflects the changing nature of online influence. After creating Screen Junkies’ popular Honest Trailers series, he was ousted following sexual harassment allegations in 2017. He reinvented himself on Popcorned Planet, initially struggling for views before finding success with content criticizing “woke” culture and supporting Johnny Depp. His coverage of Lively and Baldoni frequently features AI-generated images and aggressive commentary contrasting sharply with his earlier professional relationships, including previously praising Ryan Reynolds as a “cool dude who just gets it.”
The financial incentives driving coverage are substantial. Many creators who produced anti-Heard content are now applying similar approaches to the Lively-Baldoni case. Hilton acknowledged that while discussing earnings is “tacky,” there’s “def money to be made,” explaining that audience interest dictates his coverage priorities.
On TikTok, creators have developed distinct styles for legal commentary. Maddox identifies three categories: “greenscreeners” who present documents as evidence, “hot takes” creators with fixed opinions, and “curators” offering more nuanced analysis. These formats have democratized legal commentary, allowing ordinary users to analyze complex documents from their homes.
The generational shift in news consumption is stark. Pew Research found that one in five Americans regularly get news from social media influencers, including 37% of adults under 30. Former NBC associate producer Kayla Rosa, who now runs a successful YouTube pop culture channel, observes that traditional media has struggled to connect with younger audiences who prefer getting news from creators they personally like.
Lively’s broad subpoena approach has drawn criticism for targeting small accounts, including a Kansas stay-at-home mom with one YouTube subscriber who wrote about her surprise at being included. Lively’s counsel defended the strategy, stating in court filings that Baldoni’s PR agency had identified these accounts as relevant.
The online ecosystem surrounding the case remains intensely polarized. Pro-Baldoni subreddits significantly outnumber pro-Lively communities, with some containing threatening material toward Lively supporters. Hilton actively participated in these forums while representing himself, promoting his legal filings and encouraging supporters to attend court hearings.
In September, Hilton announced a victory after the ACLU of Nevada agreed to represent him, prompting Lively to withdraw her subpoena. His celebratory video cleared 129,000 views, among his best-performing content of the summer. The fundamental question of whether influencers qualify for journalistic protections remains unresolved, ensuring these issues will continue to evolve as celebrity legal dramas increasingly play out through social media commentary.
(Source: The Verge)
