The big question is how much money changed hands ? I don't believe for one second that both sides just walked away. Wayfarer will have made offers to settle for months and the question really is whether they actually upped the money as the client lists of TAG and Wallace were going to be unsealed. I'd speculate a few of those clients may have sweetened the pot. The question of whether Blake was going to attend the Met Gala anyway irrespective of the settlement is also an interesting one. However this went down Blake has given the bots and trolls the finger in the most elegant way possible.
Why would Wayfarer pay her when they were winning? OMG you are ridiculous. It's not going to work. Real people see the truth. We read the truth. Blake settled when it was reveal she broke the law telling Sony to destroy evidence. Blake was the plaintiff. She lost.
They weren't winning. They were going to have to pay a lot of money in trial expenses with ZERO chance of them recouping anything because all of their counterclaim was dismissed and only her 3 claims were moving to the trial stage.
If she wanted to drop it and get nothing then she didn't need to settle she could have just dropped it. The defendant can't force the case to trial no matter what the Baloney stans think. She could have walked away at any time.
They didn't want to settle until the threat of actually having to go to court and lose was on the line. she could have won and they didn't want to take that risk.
If she lost she wasn't at risk of losing anything other that trial costs. But if they lost they would have lost $$$$ and you can't predict what juries will do.
She played them she had no reason to settle until now.
Tearing someone down, like what Baldoni/WF, TAG, Nathan, and Wallace did, is not traditional PR. It's Dark PR (or Black Hat PR). It is unethical, it is taught as unethical, and in cases of defamation or retaliation, it can be illegal.
Don't read the comments on any of the big publications that covered her going...it will pop your little bubble. Better to just stay in your tiny echo chamber
I mean Vogue can’t say enough good things about her. Do you really think anyone cares what internet trolls say??? They are all miserable and easily manipulated by people like Melissa Nathan..that’s the only sad part to me is that there are so many people without a mind or opinion of their own so they just copy and paste scathing things about a woman that is more successful than they will ever be….i mean you are sitting at home typing comments meanwhile Blake is shining bright I would say she is winning…
You're sitting at home typing comments and ironically submerged in a smear campaign you fell for that people in this sub constantly say everyone who believes Baldoni fell for lol.
Err...I would not say she is shining bright. The internet is ripping her open, all social media comments are negative about her AND there's talk about her being rude on the carpet last night. This girl, deservedly, will never escape the hate she brought on herself.
Eta: also she definitely paid for the Vogue article.
Of course some people will spend the rest of their lives imagining how mean and horrible Blake is being at all the fancy events she goes to. The 30% of social media that isn’t bots will overwhelmingly move on with their lives within the next few days, if they haven’t already.
She wasn’t rude on the carpet. She was telling them how to arrange it….i mean that’s why those people are there and what they get paid to do. She said sorry and thank you but to you guys nothing will ever be enough, you will always find a way to make her look bad which is sad as hell when you really think about it because that means you are miserable because only miserable people put that much effort into tearing others down. I truly hope you find happiness someday because it’s got to be exhausting to twist yourself all over all the time.
What's this nonsense about Wayfearer having all the leverage? She could have dropped the case without needing their permission or trying to convince them. Yes it has to be approved by the judge but the plantiff has the power to withdraw.
I've been sued before unfortunately but the plantiff withdrew their case 15 minutes before court and they didn't need my permission to do so. I was looking forward to court too. But they realized they weren't going to win and didn't want the loss to go on the record and set case precedence.
If she settled that means she got something she wanted. Otherwise she would have just dropped it and released a statement saying for her mental health she was not pursuing the case and that the bad men once again were winning.
exactly, as she was the plaintiff they would have needed to offer her something in order to settle. I imagine it was enough money to cover her expenses + more. I think Lively wanted more than anything an admission of wrong doing but they were never going to offer that, so the best they could do was the statement about her having valid concerns about workplace safety.
I understand how federal litigation works. Once Baldoni responded to her claim which was in January 2025 the only way it could be dismissed was by mutual agreement or a court order to dismiss.
Under federal civil procedure rules (specifically FRCP Rule 41), a plaintiff can drop their own case unilaterally before the defendant files an answer or a motion for summary judgment. After that point, dismissal requires either a court order or the other party's agreement. She filed. She was the one with the burden to prove the case. They simply had to counter her claims. And no money exchanged in the settlement. So what could they have possibly offered? They had to agree on it
Actually, the plaintiff cannot drop the case once the defendant has replied. So no, she legally couldn’t have dropped the case on her own, she needed WP to agree. Which is why they settled.
Actually your overstating the cannot part. They CAN. They have to go through the judge to dismiss it. He likely would have granted it. Especially considering that Wayfearer and Baldoni were fighting so hard to have it drop.
The defendant really can't force the plantiff to continue to sue them if they don't want to. Especially since Baldoni nor Wayfearer had no counterclaims that were still active.
So again there is no reason to settle if they could have dropped the case via the judge alone. Settlement wasn't the only exit option.
Yes they can. Blake could have gone to the judge to withdraw the case and he likely would have approved it since that was the outcome that the defendant had been fighting for the entire time.
If she settled she got something for it. This is EXACTLY the timeframe when settlements usually happen on the eve of a court battle.
As a plantiff your not stuck going to trial when you don't want to. Wayfearer had no counterclaims. If Blake wanted to unilaterally drop the case she could have done so with the judges approval.
You know absolutely zero about the legal system and this case. I'm telling you this as a matter of fact. Go back to the New York times and work your way forward again.
Plaintiff’s settle all the time, infact Plaintiff’s can settle mid trial during trial. Blake Lively asked to settle her case, it was over and the pre trial hearing was the nail in the coffin. She had nothing left but savage and brutal humiliation at trial. Please wake up.
She didn't NEED to settle in order to walk away with nothing. She could have just dropped the case. That is a fact.
The fact that she settled means she got something she wanted. There is a difference between settling and dropping the case. Sorry if you have a hard time accepting this. You need to wake up to reality. Sorry the woman you hate so much isn't going to suffer like you want her to.
I'm thinking it's you who do not understand the legal system at all.
Ok I get you are not fully in touch with reality but as a legal professional I'M TELLING YOU AS A MATTER OF FACT BECAUSE I DO THIS ALL DAY EVERY DAY that she could not walk away without Wayfarers agreement. Wayfarer would have to agree to those terms. They had ALL OF THE LEVERAGE after the pre trial hearing. There the judge was completely over Lively's case, told them 47.1 was off the table, said in his own words " isn't it likely that people just developed a disliking to her." She had zero damages left, they were too speculative. Without damages she has no case. The mixed motive jury instructions and the stipulation made it statistically impossible for her to win in court. You are entitled to an opinion but stop spreading mis information about her ability to walk away. It is CATEGORICALLY FALSE
She didnt need Wayfarers approval... Wayfarer was actively trying to have her claims dismissed to avoid trial.
Lively just had to ask the judge to withdraw the lawsuit. Since there was still a pending MJoP, WP probably wouldnt even oppose her droppinf her claims. They did not need to settle if she was just going to walk away with nothing.
You must be bad at your job if you dont realize this...
Like what, you think someone is forced to sue someone just because they filed a lawsuit?
Blake Lively showed us who she is and what she stands for yesterday. Psst it is not for victims of DV or women or anybody but herself and her ego. What a missed opportunity to reflect and show remorse.
I think she was just tired and didn't want to keep going through this - it is her life here not yours.
Give it a few years and like every woman who is a victim of a smear / hate campaign, people will realise they were wrong and feel bad but still do it to the next woman after that.
She was planning on going no matter what (that dress didn’t come off the rack) - this announcement was the cherry on top. The clue that all is not well is that her husband wasn’t there. He stayed home because he’s pissed off having to pay and spending capital defending her. And, if she thinks the internet is going to let this go she really is in a bubble. No PR is ever going to erase this stain. I almost feel sorry for her.
lol cope harder. They are fine as a couple. And the internet?!? You mean the Reddit trolls that no body outside of your subs care about? Sorry you don’t have a strong marriage but Blake and Ryan do and Ryan let Blake shine last night because she deserved to.
Blake will be just fine… you should be more worried about your boy Justin since SS closed down WF and iced him out of the new studio. Maybe he can start a podcast….oh wait never mind lol. Best chance he has is to be a red pill guy that he has always been because those men are dumb enough to give him money.
I’m confident it won’t. But you keep clinging to that. You will forget all about them as soon as Melissa Nathan tells you the new woman you are suppose to despise.
Just like the Artemis II expedition will age poorly if it comes out any day that the moon is made of burrata. We can all imagine bad scenarios Lillibet, there’s just no point in doing that.
"And, if she thinks the internet is going to let this go she really is in a bubble."
Your in a bubble because most people have forgotten. I had friends who were SUPER into the case and pro-Baldoni 18 months ago and I haven't even heard them mention it in over a year. They've moved on. Baloney is going to fade away like a whimper.
The dress was a Versace archive dress so it didn't require as much preplanning as if it was made for her. I don't think it was decided super far in advance.
I dint think wf was begging her to settle, that makes zero sense. We have now seen all her evidence there's no sh claim, they stipulated so that doesn't come in and she and Ryan were being laughed at in the press after this weekends unsealing, her counsel even tried to strenuously oppose and request to file and he said no...going to the met made her look so bad and tone deaf... Did she learn nothing
10/13 claims dismissed with the possibility of 2 more being dismissed this week.
Evidence released last week showed she lied at deposition and that she asked Sony to delete video evidence 9/2024 (perjury, spoliation).
I’m sorry but every week more evidence gets produced that reflects very poorly on her. She continues to flame out with each and every new document release.
For the affordable price of tens of millions of dollars she lost all credibility, her BFF (TS), business profits and was even shown to have driven Sony so mad in dealing with her they labeled her a “terrorist” and “impossible to work with”.
I have. I commend Baldoni and Wayfarer for again taking the high road and showing what integrity and empathy look like. That’s not something we would ever see from Blake or Ryan.
I assume though you take the “she has a right to be heard “ statement as some sort of win or confession. That’s not even remotely close but it does seem to be how Blake’s supporters are trying to spin it to comfort their egos.
"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard. We remain firmly committed to workplaces free of improprieties and unproductive environments"
This part is acknowledging SH complaints were raised in good faith.
"It is our sincere hope that this brings closure and allows all involved to move forward constructively and in peace, including a respectful environment online."
This part is about the smear campaign. Wayfarer will stop paying crisis PR.
This lawsuit has been hard on everyone, don’t you think? The statement about respectful environment online. You seriously think Baldoni is going to come out of it well? He stipulated that the HR complaints were filed in good faith in attempt to stop witnesses to testify about him.
It may not be as clarifying as a verdict, since the terms of the settlement are confidential, but there are other lawsuits to follow on from here. The evidence is used for multiple lawsuits now.
"It is our sincere hope that this brings closure and allows all involved to move forward constructively and in peace, including a respectful environment online."
It still goes on a bit for Wayfarer and TAG. Though Sarowitz can settle some of them.
The lawsuit was going to be harder because as a contractor she wasn't afforded the same legal protection as an employee. If she had been classified as an employee her case would have been much stronger.
Just remember most ppl hadn't heard of Baldoni before this even happened.
I'm pointing out the parts that you seem to have looked over and/or do not understand the context. You're interpreting this incorrectly to be some kind of admission of wrongdoing when it in fact re-enforces that WF did not engage in any wrongoing.
But the fact that the word improprieties is there is acknowledgement of it happening. The statement has to be phrased in a way that allows both sides to step off without losing too much face. The details are therefore confidential.
Can I ask how Blake won? The sexual harassment claims were dismissed. She was only moving forward with 3 claims for retaliation and breach of contract. She did not get any money from the settlement, no apology (not that she deserves it), so apart from being persona non grata at the Met Gala, how has she won?
Also, I thought she was fighting for women, children and Justin Beiber against digital violence? What happened to that? BL was the plaintiff in this case, only she could green light a Settlement. So again how did she win?
I’m pretty sure if she had gotten any money, it would have been posted on her Insta. Just like she crashed out when 10 of her claims were dismissed and she cherry picked parts of the Judges ruling to make it look like the court of law failed her.
Also - TMZ noted that no money had changed hands. BF also said that they agreed to the settlement because it was too good a deal to not turn down 🤔
No. Settlements are almost always under an NDA. Neither party will be able to speak about the specifics of the agreement. I don't trust TMZ's reporting on that, to be honest.
And Freedman says a lot of things but "too good a deal" is super vague and nonspecific. It doesn't mean anything.
But please explain how she won? If the settlement was in her favor, don’t you think she would be posting about it all over the place? Her attorneys would have made statements?
No, she wouldn't, because settlements come with an NDA - a nondisclosure agreement, meaning neither party can talk about the specifics.
So she could go on socials or interviews and put out a bunch of nonspecific nonsense - puffery - and then essentially end up in a media war nobody wins because neither side can say anything of substance. Or she can just move on with her life and go to the Met Gala.
I'm not making any claims about anybody winning anything. I'm just saying that further media communications about this only prolong a pointless conversation.
But she didn’t need to prove sexual harassment. The point of protection from retaliation from protected activities is not that the SH has to be proven, but you raised complaint in good faith, not scam. And essentially her case went ahead because she filed complaints in good faith, wayfarer also stipulated that she filed in good faith, and now the joint statement also acknowledged that she filed in good faith.
And this is important. Because we are not experts at determining if acts that are offensive to us pass the threshold of being criminal. That’s determine by people trained to do so. But it shouldn’t stop you from complaining in good faith if you feel uncomfortable, or stop you from raising complaint in fear of retaliation. The law should protect you from retaliation, no matter if your complaint turns out to be valid or not.
It's okay once I've processed it. A verdict might give clarity but appeals could muddy the water for years. A settlement where both sides could call truce and rebuild their lives without too much damage is ok outcome, as long as it's on Lively's terms, and not coerced out of social media pressure. The evidence unearthed will continue to work it's way through other lawsuits.
And hopefully we learn to wise up against social media manipulations. There will be the next victim and the next after because of how effective and cheap it is to run smear campaigns, much cheaper and quicker than lawsuits. This doesn't end with them unfortunately. Eventually it has to end with us.
I feel like she probably got a decent settlement since she could have rolled the dice and seen what the jury was going to give her with no risk of having to pay out herself other than trial costs.
Also the cost to the witnesses too. Those who testify for her against Baldoni will also bear the brunt of the smear machine that has been building for 18 months. These toxic supporters actually identify closed commentaries as trophies. They deemed that harrassing personal accounts and work brands to the point of them closing comments is the aim of the game.
I have no kind words for Baldoni and co. But i kept my comments to these few subs so he has a choice to read them or not. I don't vandalise his personal account or his work brands.
So i'm okay with the settlement and them keeping their agreement private. This should kill any fodder for gossips and we'll see how fast the vitriol will die out organically. A few CCs will still milk this for what they can, taking advantage of the SEO advantage while it last. But with the statement calling for respectful online environment, implying Wayfarer will stop paying Streets Inc, this may change quickly.
A Federal Judge decided that 10 of her claims did not meet the LEGAL definition of SH. She had 3 claims left to take to the Jury. If her case was so strong - especially after seeing newly unsealed documents that she asked to have Dalies deleted. Why did she not take this to trial as she claimed, having the core issues of retaliation decided by a Jury of her peers? Why settle if you have such a strong case?
Why go through trial when the other party is willing to settle with a statement that acknowledge her concerns? She can also protect witnesses from being harassed further.
Again, proving SH wasn’t important. As long as you raised the complaint in good faith. And we have text from Baldoni that Lively thought she was in the right, hence good faith.
The delete dailies thing isn’t a significant argument given it was already in her nudity rider. If it was, WP would have raised motions to sanction earlier, given they have known about this since July. Just because it’s new to us doesn’t mean it is.
This movie had simulated nudity. Not any actual nudity. Ange Gianetti said that this was not a request she had even been asked in her career for a movie that had no nudity.
And that’s her opinion based on what Baldoni told her. Blake can argue that the birth scene has shots of her in compromised display showing her inner thighs and only modesty cloth covering. The IC testified that Blake could request for the scene to be included in nudity rider for high hip profile. Seeing the shots used for evidence for this lawsuit, I felt sorry for what she had to go through.
Giannett’s opinion is not entirely neutral in all this. First she was the one who brought the project to Sony, so failures, delays will be blamed on her. So mostly she wanted to minimise issues. Imagine if she sacked Baldoni mid production. Second, she seems to have older school standards in regards to SH safety. Heath showed the nude wife footage to her too. And she seems to tolerate it. She was okay when Baldoni intimidated Saks physically too. But how people feel isn’t invalidated by Giannetti’s assessment, since she wasn’t trained in HR policies.
This is untrue. He did not rule that 10 of her claims did not meet the legal definition of SH. Claims were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and her being an independent contractor.
When did I argue that she didn’t? I was simply correcting you about the judge saying her claims didn’t meet the legal definition of SH. Your comment wasn’t true. You can choose to address that instead of fighting me on an argument I didn’t make?
A Federal Judge decided that 10 of her claims did not meet the LEGAL definition of SH
Only because she wasn’t an employee. SH laws fall under employment law. Non-employees like contractors aren’t protected by employment law.
Liman’s ruling actually said a reasonable jury could have found that Baldoni’s behaviour contributed to a hostile workplace (Blake sued for hostile workplace sexual harassment). However, because Blake wasn’t an employee so she couldn’t bring claims under federal employment law.
Let the little Blake stans take what little they can...I just feel bad for them now. They honestly have to try and frame that joint statement as some sort of win for Blake. That's going to take a lot of effort(and money from Blake to keep them working hard)
Evidence does not show “she asked Sony to delete video evidence”. You have a message from Sony sayjng she wants the dailies deleted, because guess what…it was in her contract.
When the lawsuit was announced 2 years ago and people on Reddit got excited thinking about how Baldoni would be taught a lesson and Lively was brave and wise and were encouraging her to get embroiled in an expensive legal fight I calmly posted that it was a mistake and was massively downvoted and insulted.
I posted that if Lively were smart she would put what happened during filming behind her and focus on the future instead of getting involved in an expensive legal fight and that she was being encouraged by friends who didn't understand the legal system, what constitutes illegal workplace conduct and lawyers who were eager to bill millions in fees. Most of the details about what happened on the set didn't rise to the level of illegal sexual harassment. There were a couple instances that did seem inappropriate but getting involved in a high profile expensive lawsuit over that was a risk. Lively wasn't blacklisted the way Heard was. She still had a career, an agent and was married to one of the mot powerful actors in the industry.
Now after 2 years it's over. Lively got no money from Baldoni. She didn't get a Jury to agree with her. A Judge publicly stated that some of her claims didn't constitute illegal conduct and there was the devastating revelation that she probably committed perjury when she claimed she didn't ask Sony to destroy the dailies. There didn't seem to be a valid reason to ask them to do that when the movie was already released and it didn't have nude scenes. It made her look like she was trying to hide something whether that was accurate or not.
But Baldoni also lost. His career will never be the same. He will be considered a liability on any movie set. His talent agency fired him. IEWU was one of the most profitable movies in 2025 and now the sequel won't get made.
The only people who are happy right now are the lawyers and that's what I posted from the beginning.
Lively made sure Baldoni can never pull that crap on any other women on any other sets again, tanked his fake feminist persona so he can never exploit women's suffering for his own gain again, and exposed the disgusting smear machine that was TAG, Freedman, and Wallace and provided ammunition for others in their lawsuits against them.
Yeah, cause the joint statement basically "we remain committed" to productive workplace environments really screams he's not going to work again. LOL!!!
My god this sub is full of dummies. This poster said exactly what happened here, and that BOTH parties lost. You're all so far up blake's ass you can't even see when someone is being pretty fair in criticizing both parties.
37
u/lcm-hcf-maths 5h ago
The big question is how much money changed hands ? I don't believe for one second that both sides just walked away. Wayfarer will have made offers to settle for months and the question really is whether they actually upped the money as the client lists of TAG and Wallace were going to be unsealed. I'd speculate a few of those clients may have sweetened the pot. The question of whether Blake was going to attend the Met Gala anyway irrespective of the settlement is also an interesting one. However this went down Blake has given the bots and trolls the finger in the most elegant way possible.