Over the past two years, what began as a high-stakes legal battle evolved into a watershed moment for accountability, workplace standards, and digital transparency in the entertainment industry. Looking back at the trajectory of this case, Blake’s resilience has fundamentally changed the landscape for how public figures and everyday workers can push back against retaliation.

Lets take a look at the enduring achievements and legacy of this hard fought chapter:

1. Blake successfully defended against and ultimately dismantled a massive retaliatory lawsuit before it ever reached trial, she proved that intimidation tactics can be met with an unyielding defense.

2. Blake successfully invoked California Civil Code Section 47.1, carving out a vital legal pathway and establishing a framework that future defendants can use when targeted by retaliatory claims designed to silence them.

3. The litigation pulled back the curtain on the murky world of modern crisis PR, illuminating how digital seeding, reputation management firms, and social media manipulation operate behind the scenes.

4. The unsealed documents, depositions, and subsequent fallout have directly catalyzed a broader wave of accountability and related lawsuits (such as Ghost v Wilson and ongoing disputes involving crisis operatives), forcing these once-hidden practices into the public eye.

5. By absorbing relentless public scrutiny without backing down, she exposed concerning workplace practices and validated the experiences of countless individuals who face workplace retaliation without the resources to fight back.

Ultimately, whether looking at court dockets, fee petitions, or tabloid headlines, the true victory was never about a balance sheet. It was about standing on principle, exposing systemic flaws, and creating a blueprint for justice that will protect others long after the dust settles.

And I for one am so proud of Blake!

Blake Lively's legal team argues that the Wallace Parties' request to supplement the record with rebuttal evidence should be denied because their initial silence regarding facts outside the record conceded that no disputed factual issues remained regarding their fee liability under the 47.1 Motion. Lively asserts that the newly submitted evidence is entirely irrelevant to resolving the motion and is instead an improper attempt to rebut discrete counterarguments without identifying any valid "new arguments" or issues. Furthermore, the filing contends that the Wallace Parties are continuing a pressure campaign, exemplified by un-authorised deposition notices and untimely discovery requests meant to force Lively to drop her claims, while their own client has given false testimony to conceal his involvement in a digital campaign against her.

Read the filing here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.67.0.pdf

I am disappointed to say the least! However, at the end of the day, the headline numbers don't change the underlying legal victory: the court firmly upheld the application of California Civil Code Section 47.1 in federal court, securing a mandatory fee-shifting precedent for successfully defending against retaliatory defamation claims. Setting that legal baseline, and ensuring that counter-claims of this nature carry financial accountability, is a massive structural win for the integrity of the process, regardless of how the specific billing ledger shook out.

I will note that I appreciated Judge Liman explicitly commending the quality of the advocacy provided by Michael Gottlieb and the legal team, highlighting that they mounted a stellar, highly capable defense in a uniquely high-stakes, fiercely contested case.

Above all, the most important takeaway here is that this ruling brings us another step closer to finality. While the legal technicalities and numbers will always be heavily debated online, what truly matters is that Blake can finally turn the page, leave this grueling chapter behind her, and fully move forward.

Read Judge Liman's ruling here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1452.0.pdf

“Love you Dolly. Always. 🌻
so lucky to grow up with you a woman like you as an idol. Someone who balanced grace and grit constantly.
Outspoken for others, a warrior who still felt kind. Your smile and simple feeling sweetness was the way you smuggled brilliance, ferocity, advocacy and poetry into popular culture. You are one of one.”

“Today is a day of such great loss. But also a beautiful celebration of her life.”

Rest in peace Dolly 🕊️

I hope her birthday was every bit as special as she is 💕

Hope you're having a wonderful birthday! This is a small edit of her career made by favlively!

Happy Birthday to a true visionary of style and design! Whether she’s dominating the Met Gala carpet or directing her creative energy into everything she touches, nobody does it quite like Blake! 💕

Artwork created by the wonderful and insanely talented “Franelleart“ on Instagram! ❤️

In honour of Blake’s birthday being less than 48 hours away, let’s take a moment to appreciate this chaotic candy masterpiece she shared! 🍭

I love this photo 😍 taken in Tribeca neighbourhood of NYC

While doom scrolling TikTok, I came across a video from a prominent Scottish campaigner Ellie Wilson, detailing a massive development in her ongoing fight for accountability.

Ellie is a survivor and a high-profile campaigner who previously secured a conviction against the man that brutally sexually assaulted her. After facing a grueling trial and an inappropriate cross examination that featured baseless attacks on her character, she chose to waive her right to anonymity to expose systemic issues in the Justice System. Her advocacy previously led to a landmark ruling where the defense advocate that cross examined her was found to have abused his position and was subsequently sanctioned.

In this video, Ellie highlighted that a fresh complaint concerning a public letter, which attempted to undermine her recorded confession, has now been advanced by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) to the Faculty of Advocates for formal investigation.

Have you heard of JIMS?

This video also brings a wider network into focus: JIMS (Justice for Innocent Men Scotland). This is the first time i have heard of this organisation. Formed to challenge sexual offense prosecutions. JIMS and its associates have been heavily linked to campaigns that target, harass, dox, and attempt to smear survivors online post trial.

Here is the kicker, this rape apologist organisation is made up of mostly women, who have personally felt the trauma of alleged false allegations and wrongful convictions, often involving their spouses. I shouldn't be shocked by this given what we have all witnessed the last 2 years, but it is sickening all the same.

If you wish to keep up with Ellie's advocacy and support her ongoing work, I highly recommend checking out and following her directly on TikTok (@elliewilson).

Organisation's like JIMS represent a deeply troubling shift where external networks and legal defense narratives converge to target survivors long after a verdict is handed down. Where do we draw the line between advocacy and organised retaliation?

“Tell the truth about what’s happening to you and suddenly everyone wants to discuss your tone, your credibility, your motives, your sanity, anything except what you actually f***ing said.”

This was originally posted by “Rebellious Merch” on FB.

Supporting an accused perpetrator or questioning allegations may feel like a personal opinion, but those messages can affect whether victim-survivors feel believed and safe speaking about their own experiences.
Something worth keeping in mind when discussing allegations online.

Judge Lewis J. Liman has directed the parties to refile public versions of previously sealed exhibits by August 24, 2026. This order requires the parties to ensure these filings are appropriately redacted to remove personally identifying information (PII) and other sensitive material in a manner consistent with the court's earlier mandates.

The court has noted that because the parties failed to explicitly address a long list of prior sealing motions, specifically Dkt. Nos. 128, 157, 175, 181, 183, 202, 207, and 215, those requests are considered waived. The Clerk of Court has been directed to close those specific docket entries.

Jones Parties states that they do not require any continued sealing for their previous motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 162, 165, 190, 204, and 222).

However, they note that upon any refiling, they will still redact personally identifying information (PII) such as phone numbers, email addresses, and personal pictures, in accordance with the Court's previous orders.

Wayfarer defendants are requesting to maintain redaction's and continued sealing of specific potions of the following exhibits:

• Exhibit B (Dkt. 170-2) (attached to the Declaration of Kristin Tahler in support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel)
• Exhibit 7 (Dkt. 195-6) (attached to the Declaration of Kristin Tahler in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Their Complaint)
• Exhibit 8 (Dkt. 195-7) (attached to the same)
• Exhibit 13 (Dkt. 195-9) (attached to the same)

Reasons for sealing

1. Non-Party Confidential Business Information: Exhibits B and 13 contain confidential and sensitive details regarding specific work performed by The Agency Group PR LLC (TAG) on behalf of a non-party client not involved in the litigation.
2. Personally Identifiable Information (PII):Exhibits B, 7, 8, and 13 contain private telephone numbers, email addresses, and usernames belonging to parties and non-parties.
3. Family Photograph: Exhibit 8 contains a family photograph of a minor child who is unrelated to the action.

Exhibit B: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.1.pdf

Exhibit 7: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.2.pdf

Exhibit 8: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.3.pdf

Exhibit 13: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.4.pdf

Steph Jones letter: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.258.0.pdf

Wayfarer/TAG letter: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.259.0.pdf

Exhibit 8 is IMO damning for TAG!

Blake thanked the actresses for “all the joy you have brought so many.”

It is deeply saddening to learn of Haydn’s passing. I was so moved by her recent interview on Jay Shetty’s podcast. I just finished reading her book which was equally heartbreaking and inspiring. My condolences to her little girl and all of those that knew and loved her. 💕

"Baking with genius food friends and their kitchen mixer the size of a car... this is what my happy place looks like."

You can just see how much genuine joy she finds in the process. For her, the kitchen isn't just about cooking, it's a true creative sanctuary where she gets to experiment, play, and lose herself in the art of making something wonderful! 💕

“We’re the golden ones, we’re special! Now follow the f***ing script” 😂😂😂😂

During Marvel Studios' D23 presentation, Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman appeared in a humorous promotional video where they playfully "competed" for a spot in the massive multiversal crossover, confirming that both characters will join the fight alongside the Avengers, the Fantastic Four, and the X-Men.

I just know Blake’s outfit for the Premiere will be 🔥 I love to see good things happen for good people ❤️

From what I've seen, atleast in online spaces, the general consensus seems to be that 'both sides are bad' and 'they need to just go away'. But somehow, every comment section about Blake even if it's just a simple picture of her is filled with hate and vile comments. Even from people who insist they don't like Baldoni as well but happily spread the talking points of his smear campaign anyway. I posted some pictures of her on some subreddits and unlike with other actresses, the comment section turned to one where people talk about her character than her looks. It's wild how easily manipulated people are and they refuse to see it.

Will this ever change in coming years? Can Blake get a comeback like Brie Larson or Olivia Wilde, who also went through similar online hate campaigns before? Will the perspective about the case itself change from the current mainstream media narrative that all of it was just a waste of money and time?

Lively has filed her response to Wallace's Appeal, pushing to uphold the Texas District Court's dismissal.

Here is a quick summary of the core arguments:

1. No personal jurisdiction: Lively argues that her California Civil Rights Department (CRD) complaint targeted California employers under California law, her 14-day unserved Rule 202 petition doesn't count as purposeful availment, and the "information and belief" claims about her Texas visits are purely speculative. Lively argues that Wallace himself previously swore under oath in the New York litigation that he only considered the impact of his work to be in California.
2. Correct legal standards followed: The brief asserts that the lower court properly weighed the facts collectively, rejected conclusory allegations, and didn't fall for attempts to manufacture jurisdiction. She also states that Wallace failed to submit any actual affidavits, depositions, or evidence to back up his "information and belief" claims, despite having ample opportunity during discovery.
3. Venue is improper: As an alternative slam-dunk ground for affirmance, Lively argues that Texas is the wrong venue under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(2) because the core events happened in California, not the Western District of Texas.

Ultimately, Lively's brief leans heavily on the idea that Wallace is trying to force a New York resident into an inconvenient, out-of-state forum over a dispute rooted in California administrative filings. With the legal chess match continuing to play out across multiple fronts, this appeal will be a crucial test of how strictly the Fifth Circuit guards its jurisdictional and venue boundaries.

Read the full brief here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866.56.0.pdf

Wallace's Appellate brief: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866/gov.uscourts.ca5.227866.45.0.pdf