Blake Lively Attacks Mostly Female Content Creators with Trump-like Subpoenas
Blake Lively is married to one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, and she's coming for the rights of female content creators with subpoenas for their bank info, contacts, locations and more.
Sarah Jones has been advocating for women’s rights her entire life and writing about sexual harassment, assault, and violence against women for the last 15 years as a published writer.
This is a story about a celebrity feud that could set precedent that would harm all Americans.
Like most celebrities at one point or another, Blake Lively didn’t like how the Internet was talking about her in the summer of 2024.
But unlike most celebrities, she decided the best course of action was to intimidate the Internet into silence with a slew of subpoenas to social media companies TikTok, YouTube (Google), and X (formerly Twitter), demanding banking information, location data, metadata, emails and back up emails, phone information, user’s phone and social network contacts, IP addresses, SIM cards information, and so much more.
Here’s an example of the TikTok subpoena:
It’s fair to assume she had a reason to issue these subpoenas, right?
Well, not exactly.
The Internet didn’t like how Blake Lively promoted a movie she starred in, which was based on a book that went viral on BookTok titled It Ends With Us. The movie and book are about domestic violence, but Lively chose to use the promotion to push her alcohol brand and hair care products, while being sarcastic and snarky when asked about the audience who has experienced DV and might want to share their thoughts with her.
Fans were very unhappy.
So the Internet dug into her past, finding things like her “super top secret” wedding on a slave plantation, her attempt to create a lifestyle brand and e-commerce website called “Preserve” — for which was penned a piece about the “Allure of Antebellum” (pre-Civil War south) — that was hit with “toxic workplace” claims by former employees “that resulted in legal threats, burnout, and six-figure settlements.”
They also found her claims to be part Cherokee in a beauty diversity campaign, but much worse were quotes of her defending infamous sexual assaulter and harasser Harvey Weinstein, with whom she was seen frequently, and calling Woody Allen “empowering” at the height of the Times Up initiative, after Dylan Farrow’s accusations that he had molested her when she was a child.
“It’s amazing what Woody has written for women. It’s very dangerous to factor in things you don’t know anything about,” Lively said. “I could [only] know my experience. And my experience with Woody is he’s empowering to women.”
Lively’s words are hard to accept for Farrow. “I struggle to understand how a woman who believes Woody Allen is ’empowering to women’ can claim the role as an advocate for women suffering from sexual harassment,” she told Buzzfeed about Lively.
Then there were videos of Lively joking to a male reporter that his pregnant wife was lying about food cravings, because women lie. Then an old, previously unreleased video went viral of her “mean girl” reply to a female entertainment journalist who congratulated Lively on her “little bump” after Lively had already announced her pregnancy, with Blake snapping back, “Congrats on your little bump.” The female journalist was not pregnant.
That female journalist is also one of the recipients of the Lively subpoenas.
Kjersti Flaa’s interview that went viral during Lively’s offensive marketing of IEWU:
Or the video of her bragging about taking over movies after tricking the producers into thinking they were hiring an actress, and how they must feel like it’s a rug pull, but that’s okay because she needs “authorship” to feel good. She ended that video wondering, “Am I the asshole in the room?”
The Internet thought: Yes.
Many other celebrities have been here, but chose to handle it with an apology and/or promises to do better.
The difference in this case is that Blake Lively, who had taken over the film — even putting the director in the basement for the premiere of a film he had been working on for years — sued the director months after the premiere for her bad press, accusing him of an “untraceable smear campaign.”
Lively claimed the (as yet unproven) smear campaign was retaliation for the protected activity of her suggestion that she reported sexual harassment on the set, which would make it unlawful.
After she filed a CRD complaint and the New York Times ran an article about it within hours of the filing, the Internet shifted its position on her. She had their sympathy. They were outraged on her behalf.
But then the man she accused, Justin Baldoni, dropped a video and a timeline that completely destroyed one of her major claims. Because this video evidence was so different than her claims, it raised questions about the veracity of her other claims. Further evidence he posted continued to erode the story she had presented.
The problems for Lively had just started.
Unlikable Victims
Lively’s supporters argued that it didn’t matter that she didn’t bolster other women in their accusations or that she had stood with infamous sexual harassers and abusers like Harvey Weinstein. In other words, just because Blake didn’t believe other women doesn’t mean she shouldn’t be believed — and that is true.
The public was still with her at this point.
All kinds of women are victims of sexual harassment, and we don’t have to like them to believe that fact. Megyn Kelly, for whom I advocated during her 2017 accusations against Fox News’ Roger Ailes, is a great example of this principle. We support women with credible allegations even when we don’t “like” them.
Lively Branded “Toxic Diva”
However, Lively’s much vaunted smear accusations are also taking a hit as her lawyers suggested in a court filing that they subpoenaed the smaller, mostly female content creators because they were on a list that “apparently” was working at the behest of Baldoni’s PR firm…
… Only to have the Wayfayer parties’ legal team fire back that only one person Lively subpoenaed out of 42 is on the list, and it was not a list of people who had worked for them or on their behalf, but rather of media and or content creators with whom they’d had contact.
Lively’s lawyers attacking the credibility of content creators is potentially damaging to them professionally, as explained by Ashley Brianna Eve, who is a PR and branding professional who denies any contact of any kind with any Wayfayer/Baldoni party, but now is concerned that clients could falsely think she took money to smear someone due to Lively’s lawyers’ claims in a court filing.
The content creators are being smeared by Lively’s celebrity megaphone and there isn’t much they can do about it.
Journalist Kjersti Flaa said that when Flaa’s lawyers asked why she was being subpoenaed, Lively’s lawyers told Flaa’s lawyers that they think she’s been paid by Justin Baldoni. Flaa has denied any involvement as well. That is a suggestion of wrongdoing, and now her reputation is being smeared by the Lively celebrity megaphone.
The subpoena debacle got Lively branded a “toxic diva.”
Money and Power Against Small Creators
Blake Lively’s husband Ryan Reynolds was a party to this legal mess until he was dismissed a month ago — yet he is on the content creator subpoenas for unknown reasons.
Reynolds is a walking money machine backed by arguably the most powerful agency in the world, WME. He has his marketing company Maximum Effort and his Mint Mobile business, he is also Chief Creative Officer of MNTN, a connected TV advertising platform that sought up to $1.24 billion valuation in its IPO in May of 2025. He also co-owns Wrexham A.F.C. In other words, he is much more than just an influential Hollywood player.
The content creators report having been quoted between $10-20,000.00 by lawyers to respond to the subpoenas, because a Motion to Quash requires a retainer. They were told it would cost a minimum of $150,000.00 if it needs to be litigated.
While we can all have sympathy for Lively not liking the backlash aimed at her, there are broader issues at play in this case now. If this goes through, what precedent will it set for powerful people with money against the free speech of average citizens?
Safety
Many of the creators are survivors of domestic violence or sexual harassment, and responding to the subpoenas potentially doxxes their address and real names, putting their privacy and safety at risk.
This is even more of a concern for the creators who have been following this case and have thus witnessed the death threats and threats of arson aimed against members of the Wayfayer parties and journalist Flaa.
The threats escalated to actual arson and threats to kidnap the child of one of the Wayfayer parties, resulting in charges of “one count of arson, six counts of intimidation and one count of harassment through electronic communication.”
'If you guys are prepared to spend a hundred million to ruin the lives of Ms. Lively and her family, we are sure you can spare a few for your daughter.'
Another message was sent to the daughter identifying her college and the address of her sorority house which she frequently visits, adding: 'You guys are not untouchable. You can upgrade your security all you want and that still won't stop us.
'We are prepared to ruin all your lives over a little bit of money. The next fire we start will be from the inside.'
Additionally, another party’s medical information that he had asked to be sealed was revealed by Lively’s lawyers, who also inadvertently reportedly shared multiple people’s addresses in court filings even as their client has insisted on multiple levels of privacy and protection as a celebrity.
But logic says that regular people who can’t afford personal security should get at least as much privacy as a celebrity who is surrounded by elite protection agencies and personal protection.
She Made a Small Content Creator Cry in Fear
One of the content creators is a popular YouTube account with nearly a million followers that barely touched on the Lively-Baldoni case since Baldoni dropped his evidence refuting some of Lively’s allegations, and this female creator said she had been in Lively’s corner until then.
After that, she stopped covering it almost entirely.
In other words, Lively was winning with some big content creators, and then she decided to go scorched earth and demand people’s phone info and social contacts because some people were criticizing her. This is not going to end well for her, as PR expert Molly McPherson predicted:
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
Lively even subpoenaed a woman who went her high school and is not a fan.
Lively, who has 40 plus million followers on Instagram, sent a subpoena to a YouTuber with 248 followers, who cried out of fear on camera when she talked about the subpoena.
A spokesperson for Lively disagreed that the subpoenas are silencing creators, telling Variety, “There is no silencing of content creators; they are obviously making their views known. The subpoenas to social media companies are one piece of the puzzle to connect the evidentiary dots of a campaign that was designed to leave no fingerprints.”
The spokesperson doesn’t seem to understand that Lively going after creators’ private data and banking info without evidence is invasive, and it is not something she is entitled to without justification. While it might be frustrating for her, that does not erase the rights of nonparties.
All of the content creators have denied being paid by anyone related to Justin Baldoni or his PR or legal firms, and so far there is no evidence that there was even contact except for one person who was disclosed in an Attorneys’ Eyes Only interrogatory.
Because it costs tens of thousands of dollars to retain a lawyer to write a Motion to Quash, many of the creators are submitting “pro se” motions to quash, which means they’re writing them themselves. This is taking days of research, which takes them away from their lives and jobs.
All of this because Blake Lively’s legal team feels entitled to subpoena invasive personal information from nonparty content creators without providing a shred of evidence to support the invasion of privacy and chilling of free speech.
It “smells of an abuse of discovery,” a TikTok lawyer opines:
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
The U.S. takes great pride in protecting even very offensive speech under the First Amendment, and so Lively’s supporters’ argument that these content creators deserve this because they are bad people who shouldn’t be talking about this case is deeply disturbing.
If this kind of invasion is allowed over a celebrity’s reputation, what will Trump do with that power?
There Were Other Ways to Get This Info
This information should be obtained from the parties in this case directly, not by pulling random anonymous content creators into an expensive, scary legal process that has nothing to do with them.
Lively’s lawyers also could have gotten what they wanted from these content creators directly, assuming they can show cause to drag them into this suit in the first place, by collecting affidavits from the creators that they were not being paid by anyone, a suggested by a TikTok lawyer below. But even this request should have a reason behind it, some trail they are following.
@notactuallygoldenReplying to @Lissy Lopez
That’s right. They don’t even have a thread they’re following, or if they do, they aren’t speaking about it.
Who Are the Content Creators?
Some in the media labeled the content creators as Right-wing misogynists.
I found the content creators to be a mix of non-political, true crime, women who are survivors of stalking, domestic violence, and sexual harassment, a popculture channel, a Canadian woman who is a PR expert who runs an animal sanctuary, a legal expert from the UK, a Norwegian journalist who is currently in Europe, and content creators who do anti-me too videos, as well as some right wingers.
This is an important distinction to many of the creators, who wonder why women who have been victims of DV and sexual harassment are being labeled as misogynists by the media.
Some of them say their criticism of Lively stemmed from her appearing to blow off these serious issues during the promotion of the film. It has not gone unnoticed that the media seems to only sees one woman’s experience as mattering, and it happens to be the woman married to one of the most powerful men in Hollywood. This seems to encapsulate everything that’s wrong with our current media system: For the powerful, by the powerful.
But yes, it is also fodder for the anti-MeToo crowd. And they are also entitled to free speech and due process.
Lively’s Elite, Powerful, Expensive Lawyers
Lively is represented by Michael Gottlieb and Esra Hudson through her Big Law litigation firms (yes, plural) Manatt, Phelps & Phillips and Willkie Farr & Gallagher, which is one of the big firms that made a deal with President Trump to avoid a potential executive order that could have impacted their operations.
Lively also has former CIA alum Nick Shapiro advising her litigation team on communication strategy.
The deck is obviously stacked against small time pro se creators taking on a former CIA expert and two Big Law firms.
Lively’s lawyers have been accused of dodging questions from multiple creators about the subpoenas, even though their law office is named as the place to call with questions. Many of the creators were unsure if the subpoenas were even real when they first got them.
One content creator’s lawyer said Lively’s law office told him the subpoenas were not real, but the content creator wanted to be sure, so he (Andy Signore) called the office on a recorded line, and told them he was on a recorded line, and they still wouldn’t answer if the subpoena was real.
Signore published his phone call on his YouTube channel, and then Lively’s lawyer Esra Hudson accused him of committing a crime in a legal filing, claiming he had not gotten consent for recording in a two party consent state. However, legal precedent cited by lawyers suggests that telling someone they are on a recorded line, as many businesses do, suffices if they choose to continue the conversation after that.
Due Process Issues
Separate lawyers for Lively and Reynolds have been accused of filing a John Doe lawsuit under a nonparty entity called Vanzan Inc. to subpoena the contents of someone’s phone without giving that person the opportunity to object in September 27, 2024, and then closing the suit before they had to justify it. This material is allegedly what was given to the New York Times and is the basis of the current lawsuit.
Lively’s lawyers claimed on TV that it’s perfectly legal to file a Doe lawsuit, which it is, but it is apparently intended to be used when the plaintiff doesn’t knows the identity of the person they are planning to subpoena.
Wayfarer lawyer Bryan Freedman accused the Lively counsel of using hidden corporate shields to evade transparency with the Doe subpoena.
Either way, this raises questions about due process. These are the kinds of legal maneuvers people with money and connections can use to game others out of their rights. The Vanzan subpoena is part of the narrative about abusive subpoenas that is gaining negative attention from content creators.
It’s not a good look for the legal system or for Blake Lively.
The Powerful v Everyone Else
This is turning out to be yet another case where an extremely powerful person is allowed to use the legal system to abuse and harass and silence others, all in a seeming attempt to clear their own name from the highly criticized marketing plan that Ryan Reynold’s company Maximum Effort produced.
It’s giving Trump. Again. Trump is the master of using the court system to abuse and bully. Now we’re seeing this being used by people who claim to have very different values than Trump.
It’s the Haves versus the Have Nots.
One of the subpoenaed content creators who works in PR and branding noted the dangerous precedent that could impact everyone:
If Lively is successful with her invasive subpoenas, every single person who comments on the Internet criticizing a powerful person could face having their bank records, social contacts, phone SIM info, and more subpoenaed under the premise that they might have been paid by someone, sans any evidence that this has occurred.
Even though the mainstream media has been all-in for the wife of the powerful Ryan Reynolds, Lively can’t get the Internet to take her side for very long. And so Blake Lively is suing the Internet.
The sad thing about the larger issue is yes, the Internet loves to hate women. It’s tragic and disgusting and depressing. But the answer to that is not to go after 40-60 women content creators with seemingly no evidence of involvement.
If Blake Lively was sexually harassed, we stand with her in that fight. But a powerful woman jeopardizing small female content creators who criticized her is giving shades of Trump and we cannot support that.
Lively’s subpoenas should alarm anyone who cares about the First Amendment and due process, especially right now in our current environment.
What do you think about the Lively subpoenas? Let us know in the comments below.
Blake Trumply and her ilk are a menace to free speech. This is terrifying. Great analysis about how this is a MUCH larger issue than just one privileged diva throwing a temper tantrum because she didn't get her way. These people in power have zero second thoughts about ruining people's lives and twisting our legal system to get what they want. DISGUSTING.
Acts like a MAGA Mama!