u/tw0d0ts6

Attorney Britt joins Lauren as they discuss ongoing shenanigans with Owens!

This video is a legal commentary and breakdown of the Wallace v. Lively lawsuit, focusing on the procedural history, jurisdiction issues, and defamation claims. Britt and Sarah provide context on the ongoing legal battles surrounding Blake Lively, Wayfairer, and Jed Wallace.

Key Highlights So Far (0:00 - 27:21):
• The Wallace Lawsuit: The video explains that Jed Wallace is suing Blake Lively for defamation, specifically regarding a "precursor" complaint linked in a New York Times article that was never officially filed in court (13:03 - 14:48). The creator highlights that this document misled media outlets, such as Elle Magazine, into reporting that Wallace was a defendant in the lawsuit when he was not (14:05 - 14:47).
• Texas vs. New York Law: There is an extensive discussion on the differences between New York and Texas laws regarding pre-litigation communications. The creator cites the Landre's Inc. v. Animal Legal Defense Fund case (2021) as a significant Texas precedent that limits the scope of litigation privilege for pre-suit publicizing of claims (17:13 - 19:10).
• Jurisdictional Issues: The video notes that Wallace sued Lively in Texas, but the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (31:53 - 32:06). Wallace is currently waiting to file an appellate brief for this dismissal, with a deadline mentioned for later in the week (32:13 - 33:28).

Coming Up Later in the Video:
• Section 47.1 Analysis: The creator discusses the complexities of Section 47.1 (Texas anti-SLAPP/fee-shifting statute) and how it applies to federal court motions (2:10, 33:36 - 34:36).
• Book Bonanza: The video covers how the "Book Bonanza" event in Waco, Texas, is central to various allegations of retaliation and the jurisdictional arguments being presented (1:00:10 - 1:02:32).
• Other Cases: The video briefly touches upon other workplace discrimination cases involving Wayfairer (the Smith v. Wayfair case) to contrast how typical motions to dismiss are filed versus the unusual nature of the Lively proceedings (1:38:08 - 1:43:20).

🧶👩🏼‍⚖️

This video provides an update on the legal situation involving Blake Lively and the Wayfarer parties (including Justin Baldoni) following their recent settlement. Although the main affirmative claims have been resolved, a lingering dispute regarding California Civil Code section 47.1 remains active.

Key takeaways from the situation:

• Case Status: While both sides have settled their primary lawsuits and are barred from appealing the dismissal of their respective claims, Blake Lively is still pursuing a motion for attorney's fees, costs, and damages under Section 47.1 (0:00–1:06).
• Judicial Ruling: Blake Lively’s legal team recently requested leave to submit additional briefing on the Section 47.1 issue, arguing that the factual record had developed further. The judge officially declined this request, stating that no additional briefing is required at this time (1:34–1:47).
• The 47.1 Argument: Section 47.1 is intended to provide protection and potential damages for individuals facing retaliatory defamation claims related to sexual harassment or discrimination. Lively’s team contends that their suit meets the criteria for this privilege; however, the judge has previously noted that the earlier dismissal of the Wayfarer lawsuit was based on technical grounds rather than a finding of retaliatory intent (2:09–3:22).
• Opposition: The Wayfarer parties argue that Lively had ample opportunity to brief this issue previously and that her attempt to reopen it now is an unnecessary effort to prolong the litigation, especially given that she settled her affirmative claims without receiving any damages (5:24–7:56).

The video highlights the unusual nature of continuing to litigate a specific motion after a comprehensive settlement has been reached.

Apologies in advance for the AI summary but wanted to get this up and out asap:

This video explores alleged coincidences and suspicious connections regarding public relations strategies surrounding the It Ends With Us lawsuit drama. The creator, Kenz, focuses on three specific content creators who began covering the case simultaneously with a New York Times article, questioning their objectivity and potential ties to Blake Lively and her PR team.

Key points discussed:

• Content Creator Associations: The creator analyzes three influencers (Dr. Leslie Dobson, Expatriarch, and Morewithmj), highlighting that Dr. Leslie Dobson has worked with Blake Lively’s longtime makeup artist (0:36-1:03). The video also critiques Expatriarch’s credibility and social media behavior (2:35-2:59).
• PR Firm Allegations: Kenz discusses Stephanie Jones and her PR firm, questioning why they follow creators who are critical of her previous clients (5:10-5:39). She also points out a high turnover rate within the firm (5:40-5:52).
• The Employee Easter Egg: The video reveals that one of Stephanie Jones’s employees was featured in a previous video regarding Taylor Swift and the Met Gala, suggesting a calculated attempt to steer public narratives (3:00-4:40).
• Allegations of Intimidation: The creator claims that legal teams have attempted to intimidate her because she has been vocal about the case and has past experience working for the firm in question

So, in the Great Unsealing Part Deux, imagine my excitement when I saw not only Family Hive internal reports but the Deloitte business strategy on the docket, after being de-designated as AEO. I'd written a small series of essays a few months ago, focusing in on the Betty Buzz and Booze internal reports, as well as a general analysis of Blake Brown haircare in the context of Target's documented sales issues and a tough macro economic climate. Linking to the Target essay as below:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1qqknc0/blake_brown_beauty_expert_reports_testimony_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

In looking through the comprehensive 144 page Deloitte report, it lays out the road map for Blake Brown (then known as "Ellender Brown" as a working name) to accomplish its ultimate goal of actualizing as a multi-category beauty company, offering accessibly-priced beauty products, being at the forefront of sustainability, anchored by a "distinctive brand story and marketing approach" with a valuation of $1 Billion by 2030**. Yep. $1 Billion.** This would catapult Blake's Blake Brown Beauty to the same beauty-business stratosphere as Hailey Bieber's Rhode, Selena Gomez's Rare Beauty, Kylie Jenner's Kylie Beauty and Rihanna's Fenty Beauty. I'll leave it to y'all to think about each of these celebrities, their relevance and influence (especially to Gen Z), as well as how much each of them are immersed in and actively promote their brands.

The Deloitte report essentially provides a bridge for achieving approximately 60% of this valuation, with the remaining 40% left for Lively and her team of Execs to work through. The pillars supporting this roadmap include 1) Product Positioning as "masstige", ie desirable, thoughtful, mid-tier product available in a mass retailer; 2) Product Differentiation (high quality, high performance products rooted in sustainability and available at an accessible price point); 3) Hair care launch line built around a haircare "system" approach, with 7 styles and 7 skus available in year 1, 8 styles and 13 sku's in Y2, and 14 styles and 30 sku's in Y3; 4) Product Expansion in new haircare categories, including scalp care, online exclusives and digital test product.

There's certainly food for thought there, no? What really sticks out to me is the style/sku expansion plan, which is aggressive to say the least. To those who don't know the distinction between styles and sku's, think it about it as a style being the parent product, ie a shampoo, with sku's being different variations or scents of this same shampoo formula. Or in an apparel example, the style could be barrel-fit jeans, with each of the colors/washes available in this fit each denoting a different sku. So, going back to the Blake Brown growth plan, scaling from 7 sku's in Year 1 to 30 just 2 years later (ie 2026!) is lofty in the beauty sector. I gave my opinion on price architecture in my last essay, so I'll TLDR and say BB occupies a grey zone and isn't the most competitive in the celeb haircare space. Ditto with differentiation - the celeb haircare space is crowded with a high failure-rate, and it's objectively questionable how unique BB product is. Side note: did she ever talk about sustainability? It's apparently a core value of the product...just not sure if that was ever spoken about.

Going back to the Deloitte Road Map, the aggressive valuation trajectory is also contingent on a number of Channel and Partner requirements: a strong digital model, an exclusive partnership with a mass retailer (Target) in Year 1, expansion into Ulta in Y2, and international expansion in key Canadian, British and Australian retailers through 2025, with further markets to follow after this. Well, Ulta was a no-go (BB is not stocked by them), and the international expansion faltered. What's interesting to me about the international piece is, per Deloitte's own report, the CAGR of the haircare industry isn't as strong outside of the US/North America market growth, at 4% vs 7% in US/NA. In NA, the projected market growth rate of haircare outpaces the general Beauty CAGR at 7% vs 6%, but elsewhere it's just not as strong. To be clear, it's not a reason not to move forward in those markets, but a more conservative approach would be understandable.

CAGR of Beauty and Haircare sectors in North America and International Markets, taken from Deloitte report

The other interesting facet is the choice in Target - who, despite the issues I spoke about last time, drive a healthy share of Beauty Sales in the Masstige sector (17%) but of note is the omission of Walmart in retailer consideration, who populate almost double the market share at 32%. Target and Ulta combined still command 3% less of the market than Walmart do. Notably, one of the main benchmark competitors Deloitte points to is Kristen Ess, a successful brand in the Masstige space driving annual sales of $185m, per 2022 figures. The brand is available at Target, Ulta, CVS and Walmart.

https://preview.redd.it/ox8tyr8bktyg1.jpg?width=4031&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c641142090d8bde1887beaca4b92404a7a76af55

Based on the positioning, product growth plans and retailers, the projections point to BB driving sales of $100m+ annually, within 2.5 years, ie at the end of 2026. To achieve this, Deloitte notes that an immaculate, timely and focused execution would be required. This lofty goal of $100m+ sales would also position BB amongst some giants in the space (and it's even more notable when you compare to the "prestige" space).

the $100m annual sales Giants

Another underlying assumption relating to product plans is planned sales productivity which for Target Y1 is 2.04, increasing to 2.38 in Y2 and 2.97 in Y3. This productivity measure is also known as APS, or rate of sale (ROS) and is essentially # of sales units per Style per Store, each week. The planned increase throughout the years is attached to brand momentum and style/sku expansion.

https://preview.redd.it/i8nmeyddntyg1.jpg?width=3921&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0f2b071b4ff9c60149300bc31a3879cab530a10c

What's interesting, is that, in digging into the Family Hive report, this was actually being achieved for a decent portion of 2024, and the sales units were hitting the Target total weekly APS plan (11.57) 10 out of the 14 weeks in August-Nov 2024. When assessing by style, the various shampoo styles were those which were under-achieving their plans and thus impacting total. Why does this matter? It points to product problem, not external factors. Could be price, availability/inventory issues or the product itself: is a particular scent or formulation common across those options and driving the slower sales? Perhaps unsurprisingly, this isn't alluded to in the Family Hive report but as a merchant, would be a very valid, strategic and reasonable question to explore. I would also note that there were multiple styles which tended to exceed their weekly productivity plans (hair masks, all in wonder and dry shampoo). As a merchant, the natural reaction here would be to revisit sales plans, pull forward inventory if needed and plan to expand in the performing product categories whilst offsetting in the underperforming shampoo category.

Target - planned productivity per week, per style

Per the Family Hive report, their 2024 sales actually exceeded the Deloitte expectation by 30% (both gross sales and profit actualizing ahead of plan), however Family Hive bemoan the "smear campaign" as negatively impacting their sales results beyond the launch period, which they claim continued through June 2025. They don't reference inventory issues, lackluster marketing and "black out" periods (including when Lively filed her CRD/NYT article in Dec 2024), the well documented Target issues or their own softness in shampoo sales. For 2025, they fail to acknowledge the lack of partnership with Ulta (key in Deloitte's report) or the failure to introduce new styles/sku's as planned (2025 should have seen the introduction of 1 new style and 6 new skus). They also fail to mention that, as of June 2025, their sales were +23% vs 2024. Nor do they mention the April and June 2025 jump in sales and what drove this, and if this could be extrapolated to drive future sales. There's a wealth of info I'd love to know more about.

Family Hive LLC 2024 Sales vs Deloitte projection

Family Hive 2024 - Sales results

Family Hive - 2025 Sales results

This was a long read - longer than I'd planned - but a) congrats if you made it to the end and b) I hope y'all found this insightful/interesting. And who doesn't love some retail maths on a weekend?!

Lauren and Omar provide a breakdown of the latest pre trial filings in the case, with the discussion centering around the legal strategy, motions and evidence being prepared ahead of May’s Trial.

Key Legal Topics discussed:

🧑🏻‍⚖️ Voir Dire (Jury Selection): Omar explain the process of Jury Selection (0:59 - 3:12), highlighting the challenges of finding impartial jurors and the importance of this phase in shaping the trial’s outcome.

👨🏼‍⚖️ Motions in Limine: defined as pre-trial motions used to set the “ground-rules” for evidence (3:23 - 4:41). This includes discussions on excluding certain character evidence and potential testimony regarding SH claims (3:46 - 4:11).

👩🏽‍⚖️ Retaliation Claims: a significant portion of the conversation revolves around the FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act) retaliation claims, questioning the origin of the alleged conduct (21:07 - 25:01) and exploring why these claims remained in the case following the MSJ rulings.

👩🏼‍⚖️ Trial Logistics: Omar and Lauren discuss the estimated length of trial, debating whether it will span the projected 15 days (1:01:03 - 1:01:31) or conclude much sooner due to the narrowing of Lively’s claims.

👨🏿‍⚖️ Witness Lists and Strategy: the video reviews the witness lists (1:18:25), noting that Ryan Reynolds and Colleen Hoover are included (1:18:34). There is a discussion as to which witnesses will provide live testimony vs those appearing via deposition (1:25:38 - 1:29:02). Omar also highlights the complexities of Wayfarer and IEWU production-related evidence, including the “smear campaign” allegations and the defense’s strategy regarding crisis PR (13:12 - 13:30).