I saw people mentioning this video in the daily thread but no one posted it so here it is! Ryan Reynolds and Kenneth Branagh sat down for a joint interview for Mayday with ExtraTV. As Kjersti Flaa pointed out, this particular reporter interviewed Justin Baldoni at the IEWU premiere, so it's not her first rodeo on this case. Well, said reporter took the opportunity to box Reynolds into a corner and did so expertly. She used her final question of the interview to ask this (timestamp at 7:29):

>"Just lastly, your partner-in-crime, you have beautiful words for him."

(Referring to Kenneth Branagh's role in the Mayday movie)

>"For your real-life partner-in-crime, her birthday. Yo, all the guys are taking notes."

(Referring to Reynolds' wife Blake Lively and how he recently posted a birthday tribute)

Man oh man did Reynolds SQUIRM through this question. He couldn't say shit about shit about the reporter's wording and was stuck answering the question in the context of birthdays only.

Hats off to this reporter. She annihilated him in under six seconds lmaooo

THE DAMAGES

Remember this little chart? From Lively's third amended initial disclosures.

https://preview.redd.it/js5bhufyqrlh1.png?width=1010&format=png&auto=webp&s=47edd1bbea1e90fc427376137cb1263b34faa913

Rough math puts the total at around $485 million. And that doesn't even include attorney's fees. Also, just a reminder that Lively and Reynolds' so-called experts had the audacity to include the value of Lively directing a potential IEWU sequel in their damages calculations, for a modest sum of $35 million lol

THE LAWYERS' FEES

Billy Bush reported that Lively and Reynolds spent at least $50 million on their lawyers.

THE SETTLEMENT

Dear media outlets, stop pretending the settlement is hidden behind a veil of shadowy mystery. It's available for all to see, and it says

BLAKE LIVELY AND RYAN REYNOLDS SETTLED FOR $0

While not in official legal writing, word on the street is that she (Ryan) peed their pants when it was revealed that Lively perjured herself about requesting the deletion of dailies, and that her IEWU film edit was actually done by Reynolds, despite all his bluster that he had nothing to do with the takeover of the film. They rushed to settle shortly after because they knew they'd both get destroyed during trial. Allegedly.

THE 47.1 RULING

Judge Lewis Liman awarded Lively approximately $400,000 in attorneys' fees under California's poorly written law called Section 47.1. The amount should be $0 since there's two years of evidence that Lively and Reynolds made false accusations of sexual harassment for the sole purpose of extorting IEWU from Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer, but none of us are surprised by this ruling since Judge Liman revealed himself to be disturbingly partial towards Lively and Reynolds very early on and has never veered from that. He has ignored the plight of the true victims, Wayfarer, and has stayed punching down on them til the end.

Anyway, $400k is nothing compared to the $8 million in attorneys' fees Lively and Reynolds were originally asking for. (I guess in theory it covers Lively's "pain and suffering"? lol) As others have pointed out, it's only 5% of what they requested.

But you know what's more humiliating? This amount isn't even 1% of what they wanted in damages from the lawsuit. It isn't even 0.1% of what they wanted.

Lively and Reynolds recouped a grand total of 0.08% of the money they wanted to extract from Wayfarer in this lawsuit.

And it went to their attorneys anyway.

THE DAMAGES

Remember this little chart? From Lively's third amended initial disclosures.

https://preview.redd.it/yvw5g2svfrlh1.png?width=1010&format=png&auto=webp&s=9d1119b904d4f34625deb2964287a9ddfc282d36

Rough math puts the total at around $485 million. And that doesn't even include attorney's fees. Also, just a reminder that Lively and Reynolds' so-called experts had the audacity to include the value of Lively directing a potential IEWU sequel in their damages calculations, for a modest sum of $35 million lol

THE LAWYERS' FEES

Billy Bush reported that Lively and Reynolds spent at least $50 million on their lawyers.

THE SETTLEMENT

Dear media outlets, stop pretending the settlement is hidden behind a veil of shadowy mystery. It's available for all to see, and it says

BLAKE LIVELY AND RYAN REYNOLDS SETTLED FOR $0

While not in official legal writing, word on the street is that she (Ryan) peed their pants when it was revealed that Lively perjured herself about requesting the deletion of dailies, and that her IEWU film edit was actually done by Reynolds, despite all his bluster that he had nothing to do with the takeover of the film. They rushed to settle shortly after because they knew they'd both get destroyed during trial. Allegedly.

THE 47.1 RULING

Judge Lewis Liman awarded Lively approximately $400,000 in attorneys' fees under California's poorly written law called Section 47.1. The amount should be $0 since there's two years of evidence that Lively and Reynolds made false accusations of sexual harassment for the sole purpose of extorting IEWU from Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer, but none of us are surprised by this ruling since Judge Liman revealed himself to be disturbingly partial towards Lively and Reynolds very early on and has never veered from that. He has ignored the plight of the true victims, Wayfarer, and has stayed punching down on them til the end.

Anyway, $400k is nothing compared to the $8 million in attorneys' fees Lively and Reynolds were originally asking for. (I guess in theory it covers Lively's "pain and suffering"? lol) As others have pointed out, it's only 5% of what they requested.

But you know what's more humiliating? This amount isn't even 1% of what they wanted in damages from the lawsuit. It isn't even 0.1% of what they wanted.

Lively and Reynolds recouped a grand total of 0.08% of the money they wanted to extract from Wayfarer in this lawsuit.

And it went to their attorneys anyway.

Remember when Lively withdrew her emotional distress claims at the end of May 2025? Turns out that in March, the lawyers were researching the consequences of providing documentation from psychotherapists and physicians. There are two line items that say

1. "Conduct research re: psychotherapist-patient privilege." (page 37)
2. "Draft correspondence to M. Connolly re: psychotherapist-patient and physician-patient privilege waiver research" (page 38)

Hey, Gottlieb, remember your stupid ass lie of "five psychiatrists and five mistresses" against Baldoni? What's good??

Anyway, shoutout to Leanne Newton for spotting this. Also a belated shoutout for her being completely correct with her theory that Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds' lawyers would include Reynolds' bills in their request for attorneys' fees, which they did. I linked to the exact timestamp where Leanne points out the first psychotherapist entry, but I encourage you to watch the whole video if you want to get a sense of some of the types of entries the lawyers included that they shouldn't. For example, right above the psychotherapist item is one that says "research re discovery requests involving children," which is a very big WTF.

Lively and Reynolds' spreadsheet of attorneys' fees: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1448.2_1.pdf

Leanne Newton's theory on how Lively and Reynolds' lawyers would pad their fee request: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZTNf07lRek

Lively withdrawing emotional distress claim: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.266.0_1.pdf

Gottlieb's unhinged mistresses and psychiatrists footnote (I'm never letting this one go lol): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.95.0.pdf

I originally shared this in a comment on the Daily Discussion Megathread, but was encouraged to make a standalone post about it for visibility. I made some edits, and added links to the docket to allow for broader discussion.

---

I really hope that in their reply, Wayfarer takes the opportunity to set the record straight on malice. Liman improperly ruled on it and twisted the facts when he said they didn’t ask for some kind of evidentiary hearing. He wrote "The Wayfarer Parties have not requested discovery or a hearing (page 45)." Except Wayfarer did ask for the opportunity to present evidence in an MSJ format, saying "The parties can be directed to meet their respective burdens in a summary judgment like proceeding, based on the evidentiary record."

Liman ignored all of that. He knows Wayfarer wanted the opportunity to present evidence of malice, but skipped that so he could make an official determination to absolve Lively (and himself, for prematurely dismissing Wayfarer's countersuit, again on the issue of malice).

This is Wayfarer's last chance to get their story out on the docket, and it doesn’t harm 47.1 or real survivors at all to remain firm on the fact that Lively lied. If anything, staying silent on the specific facts of this case does cause harm, because it makes Lively’s claims and Liman’s bad rulings look legitimate, paving the way for future abuse of the law. I know Wayfarer has to tread extremely cautiously because the Jones v. Abel case is still active, but there has to be something in their filing indicating that this is a bad faith lawsuit rife with malice and an abuse of 47.1. The lack of invoices and ridiculous asking amount is a great starting point for that, but I would like to see more if possible. He did technically give them the opportunity to do this with the broad wording of “legal principles” in his ruling.

Here's what I would do. I'd include a brief section on appeal rights under the settlement, and write something like this.

>"Lively's filing flies in the face of the court's rulings, bringing back several closed matters only to improperly re-litigate them, such as the Rule 11 sanctions and the scope of permissible fees under 47.1. This is not only "an end run around the entire set of carefully crafted federal procedural rules designed to protect the rights of the parties," but essentially an appeal, the rights to which both parties agreed to waive under the terms of the settlement. If the Wayfarer parties were to appeal, we would include the argument that we were entitled to present evidence of Lively's malice via the motion for summary judgment referenced in the briefing to the court on 47.1, since we were never given that opportunity to present that evidence before malice was decided. But any such appeal argument must be hypothetical, as the current issue at hand is not an appeal. Thus, Lively's filing on attorneys' fees is improper and purely in bad faith, as it is presenting actual appeal arguments, not hypothetical ones, and requesting the court to reverse its decision. The settlement expressly precludes that kind of argument."

We've been discussing the flaws of 47.1 for a long time, but Leanne's brilliant analysis shows just how poorly written the law is. She includes slides with her discussion, making it easy to follow. She identifies six major flaw areas.

Contradictory Malice Issue

On the one hand, the law requires meeting the standard of actual malice, and that requires evidence. But if the intent of the law is to grant early dismissal, proving malice is impossible. The need to prove malice actually forces lengthy and expensive litigation, defeating the purpose of minimizing litigation costs.

Overlapping and Contradicting Privileges

47.1 is included in the larger Section 47 of California's Civil Code, and includes litigation privilege and common-interest privilege. 47(b) doesn't have a malice standard, 47(c) has a traditional malice standard, and 47.1 has an actual malice standard. What happens when those privileges and malice standards overlap or contradict each other?

Aggressive Remedies

There are no caps or limits on the remedies. The Lively case avoided damages because Judge Liman denied them, but if they had been granted, the trebling of those damages would be required, with no upper limit on how big they could be.

Vague Scope

The language of what qualifies as a privileged communication means that each court will interpret it differently, creating inconsistent judicial rulings. It can also drag in additional parties who weren't even accused of sexual harassment.

Mixed Motives

People who speak up about a real incident of sexual harassment, assault, or discrimination experience may do so for more than one reason, such as anger, revenge, or publicity. The law doesn't address what to do in those circumstances.

No Appellate Guidance

Without the interpretive scaffolding that appellate review creates, the law becomes unstable and unpredictable, decided anew in every trial court.

Since Ryan Reynolds is getting praised as a model immigrant in Forbes today, let's look at how he views the immigration experience. The relevant quote is at the end, but I think the interviewer's question and Reynolds' full answer has a lot of… interesting stuff in it, so I've included the whole exchange.

For context, this interview was at the Toronto International Film Festival in early September 2025.

Anita Lee (interviewer)

>A few years later, you landed one of the lead roles in the sitcom Two Guys, a Girl and a Pizza Place. What was it like for you to make the professional move from Canada to LA? And I know you’ve talked—I think it was an article—where you talked a little bit about being a Canadian in Hollywood, and feeling like you always had to over-deliver.

Ryan Reynolds

>I think that’s a common denominator with Canadians. There’s a commitment to what’s right, and sometimes that can go too far. I know, for a fact, I— When I experience injustice, or when I experience somebody that I work with, or somebody’s done something and there’s a lack of integrity, I tend to get really upset about it. Because I feel shame around it, too. Like, why didn’t I see it, why didn’t I do something about it earlier, or why didn’t— You know, that sort of thing.

>I think Canadians have that, but that same mechanism is actually what really allows us to be even more productive. I love to under-promise and over-deliver. I love to speak to people directly. That’s been a huge advantage in my life. I mean, many people in my position are surrounded by all kinds of people. They have a moat of people around them basically to ward off any actual communication or consequence. And boy, does that fuck your life up. You know, that’s why you hear stories of people who are entitled beyond measure, or have no real understanding of human nature or the world. And these are all the things we need to do our job. You need to understand human nature and connection.

>So when I moved to America— Which, makes it sound like I came from the Baltics or something. [Starts speaking in an accent] ‘I was tired of standing in line for bread, and I decided to grab a pool toy, and float.' …Anyway. Shush, shush.” [He gestures at himself in a shushing motion]

If you watch the video for that last part, he seems to realize that he's made a mistake with his xenophobic roleplaying, and starts to shush himself. Pretty wild.

Link to Forbes Instagram post: https://www.instagram.com/p/DZcXF6cFYwz/

Link to Reddit post about the Forbes post: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1u2xytr/immigrants_plight/

I've had multiple people tell me they are unaware of Victoria Burke's past public statements and asked me in good-faith to provide links to those statements. Rather than keep answering in comments that may not be seen, I'd like to make a masterpost of those statements. These are posted in order they were published. I've included excerpts of the most relevant paragraphs and the links to the full articles.

Edit: title should say April-June 2025

April 22, 2025

Article Title: Survivors, Legal Experts, Advocates, and Lawmakers Call for Bill to Protect Survivors from Defamation Lawsuits

http://readme.readmedia.com/Survivors-Legal-Experts-Advocates-and-Lawmakers-Call-for-Bill-to-Protect-Survivors-from-Defamation-Lawsuits/20717501

>NEW YORK, NY (04/22/2025) (readMedia)-- This morning, survivors, legal experts, advocates, and lawmakers held a virtual press conference calling on Albany to pass the Speak Your Truth Act (A687/S2419). The bill would protect survivors of sexual assault, harassment, and discrimination from retaliatory defamation lawsuits used to silence them.

>Survivors who speak out about their abuse often face the very real risk of being countersued by their abusers-a silencing tactic we've seen used in numerous high-profile cases. This trend became especially visible in the wake of the outpouring of allegations against Harvey Weinstein, who happens to be back in court. But celebrities like Justin Baldoni, Johnny Depp, and Marilyn Manson aren't the only ones using this silencing strategy. Abusers in schools, elected office, and everyday life are increasingly weaponizing defamation lawsuits-or the threat of them-to intimidate and silence survivors, many of whom lack the power and resources to fight back. In New York, this legal tactic remains disturbingly easy to exploit.

>The Speak Your Truth Act would amend New York State Civil Rights Law to protect survivors' communications about incidents of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination. It would also ensure that if abusers file defamation lawsuits over their accusers' protected statements and lose, survivors can require them to cover their legal fees and pay for other resulting harm.

>California passed a similar law in 2023, which attorneys for Blake Lively used last month to file a motion to dismiss Justin Baldoni's defamation lawsuit against their client. Speak Your Truth would provide survivors in New York with the same opportunities.

>"In New York, a glaring loophole in the current anti-SLAPP law leaves survivors who speak out exposed to retaliatory lawsuits meant to silence and intimidate. It is outrageous to expect survivors to guard the reputations of their abusers while carrying the weight of their own trauma. The Speak Your Truth Act is New York's chance to change that. This bill is modeled on California's AB 933-now law-as Civil Code Section 47.1, which was based upon my original bill proposal. I am moving my bill nationwide, with 16 states having introduced it this legislative session. Silence lets predators keep hunting and society benefits when these predators are exposed. New York must act immediately to pass this bill," said Victoria Burke, Attorney and Adjunct Professor of Law, survivor, and architect of the Speak Your Truth model legislation passed in California and introduced in states across the country.

May 27, 2025

Article Title: Blake Lively backed by advocacy groups in legal fight with Justin Baldoni over #MeToo speech law

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2025-05-27/blake-lively-support-advocacy-groups-justin-baldoni-defamation-battle

>The briefs mark the latest salvo in a months-long legal clash between Lively and Baldoni, whose bitter dispute stemming from the production of last year’s romantic drama “It Ends With Us” has played out in court and the press.

>Asked about the briefs, a spokesperson for Lively said in a statement that Baldoni was “trying to end the nation’s only ‘MeToo’ law as ‘unconstitutional’” and accused him and his co-defendants of being “so focused on trying to harm Ms. Lively that they are willing to shred a law designed to protect all victims just to make sure they ‘bury’ one.’” The statement added that Lively “will continue to use her voice to speak up for justice on behalf of herself and others.”

>Baldoni’s legal team has strongly opposed the dismissal motion, arguing that Lively’s accusations were knowingly false and that the statute she invoked is itself unconstitutional. They argue the law goes too far by threatening steep financial penalties, saying it could discourage people from going to court to defend themselves against false accusations.

>“In no event, on this Motion or at any stage of this proceeding, will the First Amendment permit the extreme and unconstitutional award of fees, costs and treble and punitive damages Lively demands,” the filing states.

>That position drew a sharp response from Victoria Burke, an attorney who helped push for AB 933 and is now leading efforts to pass similar legislation in 16 other states.

>“I was highly disappointed with that move,” said Burke, who is filing her own amicus brief in the case. “He’s put himself out there as a feminist, and this undoes a lot of the good he had been doing. It just seemed cruel and unnecessary — to try to destroy a law that was designed to protect all survivors, just to go after one.”

June 2, 2025

Article Title: Webinar Recording: The Cost of Silence: Power, Retaliation, and the Fight to Speak Out (Video)

https://liftourvoices.org/events/webinar0602

Timestamp 42:23

Gretchen Carlson:

>“I know that we were talking about stories that are in the news all the time, one of them is Blake Lively. And I’m wondering how your law may actually help her in her case against Justin Baldoni.”

Victoria Burke:

>“To my understanding with that case, what happened was, she was asking for New York law to be applied, and he was asking for California law to be applied. So my understanding is that when he wanted California law applied, she was like well, then, we’ll be using this law—which is my law, the 47.1, the Right to Speak Your Truth Act—and was able to say that, so if you’re going to sue me for defamation, I’m going to claim privilege under 47.1, that I have the right to speak out because I did so in good faith and without malice.

>That means if he continues to sue her, because he’s unable to show that she did so with malice, he will have to pay for attorney fees, treble damages for any actual damages that she has—and treble means triple the damages—and any other punitive damages as the judge sees fit.

>That is giving people a big wake-up call. Because I’ve been informed from other lawyers who have reached out who are just now starting to apply my law that it’s something that has stopped these lawsuits in their way. Those that wanted to bully someone, and threaten to sue them for defamation, when they hear that they might be on the hook for the person’s legal fees if they cannot show malice, all of the sudden has a chilling effect for meritless, frivolous lawsuits going forward."

June 4, 2025

Article Title: Justin Baldoni, Jay-Z and Smokey Robinson Are Countersuing Their Accusers, but New York’s Speak Your Truth Act Could Level the Playing Field in Defamation Suits

https://variety.com/2025/film/news/justin-baldoni-lawsuit-speak-your-truth-1236417704/

>In 2014, three years before the #MeToo movement swept Hollywood, Kesha accused Dr. Luke of sexual assault and battery in a blistering lawsuit. Hours after that was filed, Dr. Luke fired back by suing Kesha, her mother and even one of her attorneys for defamation. Two years later, Bill Cosby pulled the same maneuver, countersuing seven of his accusers. While the ordeal was difficult enough for Kesha, a chart-topping music star, it was financially crushing for the Cosby accusers who were not public figures. For their part, Kesha and Dr. Luke reached a settlement in 2023, ending a battle that lasted nearly a decade and likely cost millions.

>In the wake of the industrywide reckoning around sexual harassment in 2017, many observers anticipated that retaliatory defamation lawsuits would subside. Instead, the practice intensified, with a host of men — including Brett Ratner and more recently, Jay-Z — countersuing their accusers.

>Now, attorney and law professor Victoria Burke is trying to stymie that practice. Burke is the architect of the Speak Your Truth model legislation that passed in California in 2023 and is being considered in New York. She has introduced similar bills across the country given that the accused will often file their lawsuits in states that are friendlier for defamation claims than California. (Jay-Z is suing his Jane Doe in Alabama; Johnny Depp brought his defamation case against Amber Heard in Virginia and won.) In New York, the Speak Your Truth Act would amend the state’s Civil Rights Law to protect communications about incidents of sexual assault, harassment or discrimination.

>“I felt that the defamation laws, which are intended to be a shield, were suddenly being used as a sword,” says Burke, who began sending her original draft proposal to California legislators in the summer of 2022.

>In California, Speak Your Truth is about to face its first high-profile test. Attorneys for Blake Lively used the law to file a motion to dismiss Justin Baldoni’s defamation lawsuit against her. But the case is unique in that Baldoni’s claims extend beyond defamation to include civil extortion and invasion of privacy and include multiple additional plaintiffs who are not accused of sexual harassment.)

June 9, 2025

Victoria Burke's LinkedIn Post about Judge Liman dismissing Wayfarer's countersuit with prejudice

 

https://preview.redd.it/s5v8d46ich5h1.png?width=708&format=png&auto=webp&s=10d94fcf09e2efbc429d8aeba09b403db77c3ec5

I've had multiple people tell me they are unaware of Victoria Burke's past public statements and asked me in good-faith to provide links to those statements. Rather than keep answering in comments that may not be seen, I'd like to make a masterpost of those statements. These are posted in order they were published. I've included excerpts of the most relevant paragraphs and the links to the full articles.

Edit: title should say April-June 2025

April 22, 2025

Article Title: Survivors, Legal Experts, Advocates, and Lawmakers Call for Bill to Protect Survivors from Defamation Lawsuits

http://readme.readmedia.com/Survivors-Legal-Experts-Advocates-and-Lawmakers-Call-for-Bill-to-Protect-Survivors-from-Defamation-Lawsuits/20717501

>NEW YORK, NY (04/22/2025) (readMedia)-- This morning, survivors, legal experts, advocates, and lawmakers held a virtual press conference calling on Albany to pass the Speak Your Truth Act (A687/S2419). The bill would protect survivors of sexual assault, harassment, and discrimination from retaliatory defamation lawsuits used to silence them.

>Survivors who speak out about their abuse often face the very real risk of being countersued by their abusers-a silencing tactic we've seen used in numerous high-profile cases. This trend became especially visible in the wake of the outpouring of allegations against Harvey Weinstein, who happens to be back in court. But celebrities like Justin Baldoni, Johnny Depp, and Marilyn Manson aren't the only ones using this silencing strategy. Abusers in schools, elected office, and everyday life are increasingly weaponizing defamation lawsuits-or the threat of them-to intimidate and silence survivors, many of whom lack the power and resources to fight back. In New York, this legal tactic remains disturbingly easy to exploit.

>The Speak Your Truth Act would amend New York State Civil Rights Law to protect survivors' communications about incidents of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination. It would also ensure that if abusers file defamation lawsuits over their accusers' protected statements and lose, survivors can require them to cover their legal fees and pay for other resulting harm.

>California passed a similar law in 2023, which attorneys for Blake Lively used last month to file a motion to dismiss Justin Baldoni's defamation lawsuit against their client. Speak Your Truth would provide survivors in New York with the same opportunities.

>"In New York, a glaring loophole in the current anti-SLAPP law leaves survivors who speak out exposed to retaliatory lawsuits meant to silence and intimidate. It is outrageous to expect survivors to guard the reputations of their abusers while carrying the weight of their own trauma. The Speak Your Truth Act is New York's chance to change that. This bill is modeled on California's AB 933-now law-as Civil Code Section 47.1, which was based upon my original bill proposal. I am moving my bill nationwide, with 16 states having introduced it this legislative session. Silence lets predators keep hunting and society benefits when these predators are exposed. New York must act immediately to pass this bill," said Victoria Burke, Attorney and Adjunct Professor of Law, survivor, and architect of the Speak Your Truth model legislation passed in California and introduced in states across the country.

May 27, 2025

Article Title: Blake Lively backed by advocacy groups in legal fight with Justin Baldoni over #MeToo speech law

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2025-05-27/blake-lively-support-advocacy-groups-justin-baldoni-defamation-battle

>The briefs mark the latest salvo in a months-long legal clash between Lively and Baldoni, whose bitter dispute stemming from the production of last year’s romantic drama “It Ends With Us” has played out in court and the press.

>Asked about the briefs, a spokesperson for Lively said in a statement that Baldoni was “trying to end the nation’s only ‘MeToo’ law as ‘unconstitutional’” and accused him and his co-defendants of being “so focused on trying to harm Ms. Lively that they are willing to shred a law designed to protect all victims just to make sure they ‘bury’ one.’” The statement added that Lively “will continue to use her voice to speak up for justice on behalf of herself and others.”

>Baldoni’s legal team has strongly opposed the dismissal motion, arguing that Lively’s accusations were knowingly false and that the statute she invoked is itself unconstitutional. They argue the law goes too far by threatening steep financial penalties, saying it could discourage people from going to court to defend themselves against false accusations.

>“In no event, on this Motion or at any stage of this proceeding, will the First Amendment permit the extreme and unconstitutional award of fees, costs and treble and punitive damages Lively demands,” the filing states.

>That position drew a sharp response from Victoria Burke, an attorney who helped push for AB 933 and is now leading efforts to pass similar legislation in 16 other states.

>“I was highly disappointed with that move,” said Burke, who is filing her own amicus brief in the case. “He’s put himself out there as a feminist, and this undoes a lot of the good he had been doing. It just seemed cruel and unnecessary — to try to destroy a law that was designed to protect all survivors, just to go after one.”

June 2, 2025

Article Title: Webinar Recording: The Cost of Silence: Power, Retaliation, and the Fight to Speak Out (Video)

https://liftourvoices.org/events/webinar0602

Timestamp 42:23

Gretchen Carlson:

>“I know that we were talking about stories that are in the news all the time, one of them is Blake Lively. And I’m wondering how your law may actually help her in her case against Justin Baldoni.”

Victoria Burke:

>“To my understanding with that case, what happened was, she was asking for New York law to be applied, and he was asking for California law to be applied. So my understanding is that when he wanted California law applied, she was like well, then, we’ll be using this law—which is my law, the 47.1, the Right to Speak Your Truth Act—and was able to say that, so if you’re going to sue me for defamation, I’m going to claim privilege under 47.1, that I have the right to speak out because I did so in good faith and without malice.

>That means if he continues to sue her, because he’s unable to show that she did so with malice, he will have to pay for attorney fees, treble damages for any actual damages that she has—and treble means triple the damages—and any other punitive damages as the judge sees fit.

>That is giving people a big wake-up call. Because I’ve been informed from other lawyers who have reached out who are just now starting to apply my law that it’s something that has stopped these lawsuits in their way. Those that wanted to bully someone, and threaten to sue them for defamation, when they hear that they might be on the hook for the person’s legal fees if they cannot show malice, all of the sudden has a chilling effect for meritless, frivolous lawsuits going forward."

June 4, 2025

Article Title: Justin Baldoni, Jay-Z and Smokey Robinson Are Countersuing Their Accusers, but New York’s Speak Your Truth Act Could Level the Playing Field in Defamation Suits

https://variety.com/2025/film/news/justin-baldoni-lawsuit-speak-your-truth-1236417704/

>In 2014, three years before the #MeToo movement swept Hollywood, Kesha accused Dr. Luke of sexual assault and battery in a blistering lawsuit. Hours after that was filed, Dr. Luke fired back by suing Kesha, her mother and even one of her attorneys for defamation. Two years later, Bill Cosby pulled the same maneuver, countersuing seven of his accusers. While the ordeal was difficult enough for Kesha, a chart-topping music star, it was financially crushing for the Cosby accusers who were not public figures. For their part, Kesha and Dr. Luke reached a settlement in 2023, ending a battle that lasted nearly a decade and likely cost millions.

>In the wake of the industrywide reckoning around sexual harassment in 2017, many observers anticipated that retaliatory defamation lawsuits would subside. Instead, the practice intensified, with a host of men — including Brett Ratner and more recently, Jay-Z — countersuing their accusers.

>Now, attorney and law professor Victoria Burke is trying to stymie that practice. Burke is the architect of the Speak Your Truth model legislation that passed in California in 2023 and is being considered in New York. She has introduced similar bills across the country given that the accused will often file their lawsuits in states that are friendlier for defamation claims than California. (Jay-Z is suing his Jane Doe in Alabama; Johnny Depp brought his defamation case against Amber Heard in Virginia and won.) In New York, the Speak Your Truth Act would amend the state’s Civil Rights Law to protect communications about incidents of sexual assault, harassment or discrimination.

>“I felt that the defamation laws, which are intended to be a shield, were suddenly being used as a sword,” says Burke, who began sending her original draft proposal to California legislators in the summer of 2022.

>In California, Speak Your Truth is about to face its first high-profile test. Attorneys for Blake Lively used the law to file a motion to dismiss Justin Baldoni’s defamation lawsuit against her. But the case is unique in that Baldoni’s claims extend beyond defamation to include civil extortion and invasion of privacy and include multiple additional plaintiffs who are not accused of sexual harassment.)

June 9, 2025

Victoria Burke's LinkedIn Post about Judge Liman dismissing Wayfarer's countersuit with prejudice

https://preview.redd.it/fuyf2o22bh5h1.png?width=708&format=png&auto=webp&s=da2dd4be0f3dad67bd1360244f2cc64967649588