As Blake Lively’s battle with Justin Baldoni continues to unfold, experts and insiders warned drawing parallels to the Depp-Heard saga could carry unintended consequences.
PR pros told Fox News Digital invoking Johnny Depp’s contentious legal battle with Amber Heard may be a risky move for Lively, warning the comparison could remind the public how quickly narratives can flip when claims are tested against evidence.
Branding expert Doug Eldridge argued Lively’s early media blitz gave her a first-mover edge but claimed Justin Baldoni’s fact-driven rebuttal could reshape public opinion.
“For context, Lively was the first to go on the offensive with the splashy (and inflammatory) feature in The New York Times. Baldoni’s subsequent response not only undercut Lively’s intended ‘emotional high ground’ but began to systematically undercut her position and claims, as well as her character (and Q score) on a personal level,” the founder of Achilles PR told Fox News Digital. “For the last 18 months, we have seen a ‘clutch and accelerator’ transition between the gears of comparative power: Lively might have been the first mover, but Baldoni has unquestionably overtaken her would-be supremacy in the proverbial court of public opinion.”
BLAKE LIVELY BREAKS SILENCE AFTER JUDGE DISMISSES SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS IN BALDONI LAWSUIT
“If Depp-Heard is a reference point, this might not end up as Lively intended, when she set these wheels in motion,” he added. “Extraordinary accusations require extraordinary proof – not your feelings, but the immutable set of facts you can prove to a reasonable standard.”
In an April 17 filing, Lively’s attorneys claimed Baldoni’s team hired a crisis PR strategist tied to Depp’s legal battle with Heard and deployed a similarly aggressive media strategy. The actress’ legal team argued the connection speaks to intent, not guilt by association, and alleged the PR firm tried to downplay the Depp link publicly while scrambling behind the scenes. Meanwhile, Baldoni’s side has called the comparison a distraction designed to inflame a jury, not prove that any coordinated campaign actually existed.
Lively and Baldoni have each inundated the court docket with filings as they prepare to enter the trial courtroom in May. A federal judge allowed Lively’s explosive retaliation claims to move forward in the high-profile Hollywood lawsuit — highlighting what could be considered a coordinated effort by powerful insiders to manipulate public opinion and destroy the “Gossip Girl” star’s reputation. Judge Lewis J. Liman tossed the majority of Lively’s allegations against Baldoni, including the sexual harassment and defamation accusations. The judge’s ruling dramatically narrowed the case to focus on the actress’ retaliation claims and a breach of contract claim.
One legal expert warned Lively’s approach could backfire, arguing the comparison may do more harm than good as the case plays out in public view.
BLAKE LIVELY AND JUSTIN BALDONI REFUSE MEDIATION, SHOW NO SIGN OF SETTLING LAWSUIT
“Blake Lively’s new legal strategy, intentionally linking herself to Amber Heard, is a huge risk, and she could be effectively cutting off her nose to spite her face,” entertainment attorney Jordan Matthews told Fox News Digital. “It is absolutely true that digital smear campaigns exist, and they are often used to discredit parties and witnesses, especially those who lack power and resources, which is clearly not the case for Blake Lively.”
Matthews explained that narratives can not only shape media headlines but also juror perception. According to Matthews, “it is not a good idea to intentionally link herself to Amber Heard, whose loss to Johnny Depp was devastating, not only financially, but also in terms of her career and public image.”
“If the court rules the jury can hear testimony about the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial, then each side’s lawyers will certainly ask potential jurors about their opinions of that case, and jury selection will be absolutely critical to the outcome if this case actually goes to a verdict,” Matthews, of Holtz Matthews LLP, added.
BLAKE LIVELY, JUSTIN BALDONI MUZZLED BY JUDGE IN HEATED SEXUAL HARASSMENT BATTLE
However, another legal expert insisted it’s unlikely a judge will allow any evidence from Depp’s case to be used in court.
“There is no established connection, these are two separate instances that are unrelated, and it’s irrelevant as to what mental effect the use of such a firm had on Blake Lively,” entertainment attorney Trey Lovell explained to Fox News Digital. “Plus, the admission would be unfairly prejudicial and may improperly affect a jury to make decisions that are not based on relevant evidence.”
Eldridge said invoking the Depp-Heard saga risks reminding the public how quickly a dominant narrative can collapse once evidence is tested in court.
“Lively’s team derives no benefit from those comparisons. Heard’s team had so effectively painted Depp as an abusive degenerate that he was removed from the nine-figure Pirates franchise and was unofficially blackballed, in Hollywood,” he explained. “When they finally got to court, her claims fell apart … That’s the last thing I’d want to frame in the minds of the general public: this is Amber Heard 2.0.”
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER
The Depp-Heard legal battle could be useful as context, according to crisis and reputation management expert Dave Quast.
“From a PR standpoint, referencing Depp-Heard is useful only if Lively uses it as context, not as a direct analogy,” he told Fox News Digital. “Depp-Heard is probably the public’s best-known example of litigation narratives being fought through social media, and it gives people a familiar frame for understanding how a celebrity dispute can become a viral referendum on a woman’s credibility, likability, and motives. But if she overplays the comparison, she risks inviting the conclusion that this is just another celebrity feud being litigated in the press.”
LIKE WHAT YOU’RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS
“Her stronger posture is: ‘Depp-Heard showed how online opinion can be weaponized during litigation. This case alleges something more specific and more troubling: that professionals intentionally tried to manufacture that online backlash as retaliation.'”
Quast explained early narratives can carry outsized influence, particularly before evidence is vetted in court.
“But facts still matter, especially when the alleged facts involve the machinery behind the narrative itself,” Quast noted. “If it’s proven that people holding themselves out as crisis PR professionals crossed the line from legitimate advocacy into deception, covert amplification, retaliation, or personal destruction, that should matter to the public and to the PR industry.”
“It’s also important to say clearly that the allegations in the Lively-Baldoni case don’t describe ethical crisis PR,” he added. “The job of crisis PR isn’t to manufacture a false reality or secretly destroy an opponent. The job is to help a client communicate their position accurately, responsibly and strategically under pressure.”
