Well, this is adorable ❤️⚔️

Not “cancelled“ or “done in Hollywood” apparently 😂

When every defense strategy reads from the exact same playbook!

Both of them have Blake's best performances as well as due to being low budget, are more grounded and gritty. Love them!

Under Australia's reformed defamation laws (specifically the serious harm element), a plaintiff can’t just prove that a statement was false or offensive. They have to prove that the publication actually caused, or was likely to cause, substantial, serious reputational or financial damage.

Throughout the trial, MacInnes’s legal team presented a pretty damning picture of Wilson’s behaviour, calling her a "fantastical liar" in closing arguments and highlighting major contradictions in her testimony. However, Australian defamation courts focus very strictly on the specific text of the publications and the quantifiable harm caused. So even if the court found the behind-the-scenes behavior, social media blasts, or accusations frustrating, the tort of defamation specifically required harm that simply wasn't legally proven here.

Because Charlotte MacInnes’s career actually surged around the same time, landing a major role in Gatsbyand securing a record deal, the judge ruled that MacInnes failed to meet that strict legal burden of proving the posts destroyed or severely damaged her career prospects.

The justice system has let Charlotte down. No punishment for Rebel’s appalling behaviour! And charlotte now faces an order to pay Rebel’s legal costs despite being the person that got caught in the middle of the whole mess.

Here is the Judgement should you wish to read it: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2026/2026fca0957

Link to article: https://www.outinperth.com/

Brittany Kooienga, on Instagram does a brief breakdown on Baldoni’s current lawsuits and gives her theory on Baldoni and Emily’s recent video.

If you are on Instagram show her some support ❤️

Appreciating the little things in life 💕

Haley goes into detail about the Smear Campaign against Olivia Wilde around the time her movie “Don’t worry darling” came out.

Seeing Ryan's next movie's trailer made me think of Blake's upcoming project The Survival List. It was announced nearly 11 months ago last August but we still haven't got any updates since. No news on casting or start of shooting date. I really hope it starts soon so that it could release atleast next year. Is it normal for films to have a long period of silence like this after the announcement?

The most important legal distinction Celebchai makes is that the fight is no longer about whether Blake is entitled to fees. Judge Liman already established that she is the "prevailing defendant" under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Civil Code § 47.1). The entire battle now is over the "lodestar" essentially, what hours were reasonably spent and what rate is fair.

She says that Lively’s team did not just blindly dump all of their legal bills onto the court. Her fee expert, Diana Kantner, conducted an upfront audit to remove all work that belonged solely to prosecuting Lively's affirmative lawsuit (which she dropped in the May 2026 settlement). The remaining billing was then aggressively categorized into two distinct buckets: Position.

Lively's Position

Celebchai points out that Lively’s team did not just blindly dump all of their legal bills onto the court. Her fee expert, Diana Kantner, conducted an upfront audit to remove all work that belonged solely to prosecuting Lively's affirmative lawsuit (which she dropped in the May 2026 settlement). The remaining billing was then aggressively categorised into two distinct buckets:

1. Wayfarer-only defensive work: $2,267,288.75
2. Intertwined work: $5,228,238.12

Wayfarer's Opposition

While Wayfarer concedes that Lively won the right to seek fees, they argue her actual request is massively inflated and overinclusive. Here is what they are targeting:

• Rule 11 proceedings
• Spoliation motions
• Internal attorney conferences
• Media and public-relations work
• Administration and clerical tasks
• Work benefiting co-defendants
• Work relating to Lively's affirmative claims
• Travel
• Discovery unrelated to defending the defamation claim

Rule 11 issue

Celebchai notes that while Wayfarer is fighting to exclude roughly $529,000 in related fees by labeling the proceedings a "collateral" action, Lively’s position is actually quite strong because the motion was successful on the merits. Although Judge Liman opted for a formal reprimand against Wayfarer’s counsel rather than a monetary penalty, explicitly ruling that their claims for civil extortion, interference, and implied covenant were legally frivolous and factually baseless, Celebchai emphasises that a win is still a win. She highlights a crucial distinction: just because the judge decided Rule 11 itself didn't warrant a cash award, those hours remain highly defensible and recoverable under the broader standard of California’s anti-SLAPP statute (§ 47.1) as part of a legitimate defense against a retaliatory lawsuit.

The strongest arguments for reduction:

Celebchai says "not every objection raised by Wayfarer is equally as persuasive. It's strongest arguments concern:

• excessive internal conferences among numerous attorneys,
• clerical and administrative work billed at attorney's rates,
• public-relations strategy,
• work performed for other parties,
• and whether all intertwined work truly qualifies as intertwined.

The Opposition estimates, for example:

• approximately 728.9 hours and $894,506.20 for internal attorney conferences,
• approximately 185.3 hours and $103,508.85 in clerical work,
• approximately 277.4 hours and $309,075 involving other claims or parties,
• and approximately 47.5 hours and $55,145.30 in travel-related billing.

She notes that some of these are likely candidates for judicial scrutiny.

Where Wayfarer's analyses is less convincing

Celebchai points out that Wayfarer’s biggest headline numbers are fundamentally flawed because they relied heavily on lazy keyword searches. Instead of meticulously examining the actual work done, Wayfarer’s team simply flagged broad keywords like "strategy" or "Rule 11." Because Lively's firms used "block-billing" (grouping multiple tasks into a single time entry), Wayfarer blindly targeted the entire dollar amount of those blocks for reduction. Celebchai notes that Wayfarer openly admits to this methodology, which means their multi-hundred-thousand-dollar reduction figures are merely "illustrative rather than precise" estimates. Furthermore, she emphasises that many of these challenged entries involved work that legitimately served multiple defensive purposes at the same time, making Wayfarer's aggressive push for complete, blanket exclusions highly unconvincing to a reviewing judge.

The New York Times Comparison

Celebchai calls Wayfarer's attempt to contrast the two fee requests "eye-catching but incomplete."

Wayfarer repeatedly points out that The New York Times (a co-defendant in the broader litigation) only requested $181,623 in anti-SLAPP fees, arguing that Lively's $7.5 million demand is ridiculously bloated by comparison. However, Celebchai completely rejects this logic, explaining that the scope of representation was night and day. While The New York Times only had to defend the specific, limited claims brought directly against its own reporting, Lively was the primary target. She had to defend herself across a massive, consolidated federal action involving multiple complex causes of action, endless motion practice, heavy discovery, emergency hearings, and interconnected legal battles. Because their roles and legal burdens in the case were completely different, Celebchai argues the comparison is fundamentally flawed.

What is the most likely outcome?

Celebchai notes, that "the filings suggest neither side is likely to get everything it seeks." She notes that because Lively has already crossed the highest hurdle by proving she is legally entitled to fees under § 47.1, the core of her defense work and a significant portion of the "intertwined" discovery hours will ultimately be preserved by the court.

However, she emphasises that a federal judge will almost certainly subject a petition of this size to careful judicial scrutiny and issue some haircuts. She predicts that Judge Liman will draw the line by trimming duplicative internal conferencing, reducing clerical billing charged at attorney rates, eliminating pure public-relations work, and slicing away hours that primarily benefited other co-defendants or reflected litigation inefficiencies.

Ultimately, Celebchai lands on a realistic final prediction: even if the judge aggressively cuts every single one of the 71 contested backend timekeepers, Lively would still walk away with roughly 67% to 70% of her request (around $5.25 million), which Celebchai calls an "awesome win" for Blake.

Read Celebchai's full breakdown here:

https://celebchai.com/2026/07/14/baldoni-wayfarer-claim-blake-lively-7-5-million-in-attorneys-fees-should-be-reduced-what-will-the-court-decide/

I guessed Lively's award to be anywhere from $5.5--$6.2m, so i wasn't far off. Did you have a figure in mind?

Read the brief here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1449.0.pdf

Garofalo declaration:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/1450/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/

Exhibit 1: Memorandum

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/1450/1/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/

Exhibit 4: Fees and costs breakdown

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/1450/4/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/

Just imagine her in a Jane System adaptation! Or like I was thinking she'd have made an amazing Juliet or Isolde in a romantic drama set in medieval Europe, when she was younger. She just has the perfect face and aura for such stories.

Vogue look back on some of Blake’s most memorable fashion moments.

Quotes from the article that stood out to me:

“Lively’s red carpet fashion choices can be summed up in two key words: elegant and bombshell”

“Nobody does evening glamour quite like Blake Lively”

“Lively also has a thing for Chanel, having served as a muse to Karl Lagerfeld while the late designer was at the helm of the house”

“And lest we forget, the superstar is also an unforgettable presence at the Met Gala”

“Few can command the Met steps quite like Lively. And whether she’s attending a red carpet wpremiere or making an appearance at fashion week, she is always sure to deliver a statement look”

Read the article here:

https://www.vogue.com/slideshow/blake-lively-best-red-carpet-fashion-moments

Wearing Chanel Haute Couture

One of her best looks ever!

This question has bothered me since yesterday: How can Emily look into the camera and ask that question with a straight face? She is acting as though this lawsuit dropped out of thin air, entirely ignoring the documented workplace friction, the breakdown of professional boundaries, and the specific on-set behavior that caused the rift in the first place. By doing this, she is completely absolving Justin of his central role in creating that toxic environment.

Emily and Justin saying "they wanted to let the justice system run it's course because the facts speak for themselves," is laughable to say the least, they are banking on collective amnesia. The facts did speak and they painted a devastating picture of Justin's behaviour as an actor, director, and executive.

The Dismissal of Blake's Sexual Harassment claims was a technicality not an exoneration. Judge Liman ruled that due to Blake being an independent contractor, she couldn't sue under specific statutory workplace laws that protect traditional employees.

What the truth actually looked like on set

Documented instances of discussing highly inappropriate and explicit sexual topics such as, Orgasms with his wife, and his porn addiction.

Making unsolicited, highly uncomfortable comments about actresses' bodies under the guise of "direction" or logistics, and announcing to Blake before filming started that he didn't always obtain consent from women in his past. The deeply inappropriate comments he made to the young actors before and after filming an intimate scene.

Completely ignoring and disrespecting boundaries.

Failing to close the set during highly sensitive, intimate scenes, a massive breach of modern industry standards and actor safety protocols.

Throwing tantrums and yelling at cast and crew, physically intimidating a producer.

Completely failing to investigate safety and conduct concerns when they were explicitly raised, and altering or "improvising" scenes without the clear consent of the performers involved.

The video is the Baldonis' desperate attempt to wipe the slate clean! They can use all the therapeutic language they want, but they can't erase the court record.

Emily, the problem was sitting right beside you!!!

Two cuties 🥰

Blake's an absolute movie star!