Flaawsome Talk with Kjersti Flaa - December 15, 2025


Expert Drops Bombshell： Blake’s Case Is Over !!


Episode Stats


Length

16 minutes

Words per minute

159.8152

Word count

2,606

Sentence count

157

Harmful content

Misogyny

10

sentences flagged

Hate speech

1

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds are no longer in the game in the divorce battle with the Wayfair Parties. They have hired an expert in Crisis and Litigation Communications to help them defend themselves against the allegations of a smear campaign. Also, Hollywood has spoken again.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.000 This January on Paramount Plus, it began on the shores of New Jersey.
00:00:04.900 Now, a new pack emerges in the great white north.
00:00:09.260 Canada Shore, new original series, now streaming on Paramount Plus.
00:00:15.100 And guess who is missing on the list?
00:00:18.660 Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.
00:00:25.860 Hi and welcome to Flossom Talk.
00:00:27.620 I'm Tjanski Floor, journalist, Hollywood truth teller and your voice of reason in a town built on the illusion.
00:00:34.340 First of all, thank you to everyone who watched my conversation with Donna that I published yesterday.
00:00:39.700 That was a really, really interesting talk that we had.
00:00:43.100 So if you missed that, I'll leave a link in the description.
00:00:46.140 Donna is an insider.
00:00:47.160 She used to work as a talent agent in Hollywood and she also has her own podcast here on YouTube.
00:00:51.780 So yes, please go check that out.
00:00:53.660 Also, there's a new feature on YouTube that I quickly wanted to mention.
00:00:56.920 So if you received a voice message on your comments, that's me.
00:01:01.460 I was trying to test out this new feature, which is really cool, that I can respond to your comments with a recording.
00:01:08.040 So I'm testing that out.
00:01:09.820 So if you hear from me on your comments with a voice message, that is me.
00:01:13.560 It's not AI.
00:01:14.480 So anyways, thank you all again for commenting so much and for sending me tips and for supporting me.
00:01:21.280 I really, truly appreciate it so much.
00:01:24.200 Anyways, there's stuff going on here and that's why I wanted to jump on on a Sunday to do a quick update.
00:01:29.440 This is going to be quick.
00:01:30.560 So on Friday, there were a lot of new filings from the Wayfair parties.
00:01:35.100 They responded to Blake's response to their emotions.
00:01:39.100 So I'll go quickly through some of that.
00:01:42.520 It's quite interesting because now I feel like Blake Lively kind of admitted that she doesn't have a case.
00:01:48.320 Now Wayfair parties also added an expert here and he is putting it very plainly.
00:01:54.680 She has no case of a smear campaign.
00:01:57.720 There was no retaliation campaign.
00:01:59.860 It's so obvious at this point, but this expert makes it even more clear.
00:02:06.940 Also, Hollywood has spoken again.
00:02:10.180 Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds out of the game.
00:02:13.920 I found this new sign so telling.
00:02:17.040 You got to hear this.
00:02:18.600 Anne Rolling Stone did another story.
00:02:21.440 And this time it's about Andy Signor and Popcorn Planet
00:02:25.140 and how the judge in Florida refused to see him as a journalist
00:02:29.520 and what this ruling means for the rest of the internet.
00:02:33.840 Okay, so there were two interesting filings on Friday.
00:02:37.520 Big ones from the Wayfair parties.
00:02:39.780 There were other filings too.
00:02:41.260 I haven't had the chance to look at everything yet.
00:02:43.860 And I'm only going to talk a little bit on the surface of what happened.
00:02:47.060 But I just wanted to keep you guys informed.
00:02:49.660 So the Wayfair parties responded to Blake's response
00:02:52.980 to the motion of summary judgments
00:02:56.360 and on the opposition to motions on the pleadings.
00:03:00.420 Those are two different things.
00:03:02.460 So first, Wayfair parties filed a motion and told the judge,
00:03:06.940 hey, she has no case.
00:03:08.880 This is only based on law.
00:03:10.920 And if she could actually sue them.
00:03:13.620 Because as I spoke about a lot lately,
00:03:15.840 she was not an employee.
00:03:18.020 She was a contractor. 0.61
00:03:19.660 And that takes away her right to sue them
00:03:23.460 for toxic work environment and for SH.
00:03:27.060 And if that's gone,
00:03:28.240 she can't really sue them for a retaliation campaign either. 1.00
00:03:32.320 So everything is just falling apart.
00:03:35.340 And the other part that the Wayfair parties responded to
00:03:38.740 is their motion for summary judgment.
00:03:41.940 And motion for summary judgment,
00:03:43.060 that includes all the evidence that we've seen
00:03:45.940 or that the judge has seen.
00:03:47.160 Because he's seen a lot more than we have at this point.
00:03:49.660 So this is after discovery.
00:03:52.280 And they added everything.
00:03:53.580 And they say, hi, judge.
00:03:54.760 There is no case here.
00:03:57.040 Anyways, so what's interesting now
00:03:59.320 is that the Wayfair parties added an expert.
00:04:02.180 And this expert, he knows what he's talking about.
00:04:05.100 So this guy's name is James F. Haggerty.
00:04:08.040 And he wrote this really, really good report.
00:04:11.160 He has worked for 30 years
00:04:13.480 in crisis and litigation communications.
00:04:16.380 And he is the CEO of New York-based firm
00:04:19.140 that specializes in high-stakes legal
00:04:22.200 and reputational crisis, blah, blah, blah.
00:04:24.840 This guy knows what he's talking about.
00:04:27.460 And what he's really pointing out here
00:04:29.220 is that Blake Lively is calling
00:04:31.600 crisis PR a smear campaign.
00:04:36.420 He's saying that what the Wayfair parties did,
00:04:39.480 what Baldoni did here,
00:04:40.840 was only defending themselves.
00:04:43.800 And this and what exactly what they did here
00:04:46.480 is what everyone in Hollywood would do
00:04:49.860 in these kind of situations.
00:04:52.220 Everyone would hire a crisis team
00:04:54.560 if they know that their reputation
00:04:56.960 is about to get harmed by someone.
00:04:59.440 So this is very normal practice.
00:05:02.020 Also, there is no evidence
00:05:04.220 that any lies or misinformation
00:05:06.800 was spread about Blake Lively.
00:05:09.520 And I have to say, personally,
00:05:11.100 I haven't really heard or seen
00:05:13.380 any misinformation about Blake.
00:05:16.060 All the information that was spread
00:05:18.660 on the internet and in traditional media
00:05:21.140 was things that came out of Blake Lively's mouth.
00:05:24.920 And what the expert also says
00:05:26.460 is that he's saying regarding to the timeline
00:05:29.160 that this is key.
00:05:30.920 He says that the kind of coordinated
00:05:32.980 digital manipulation Blake alleges
00:05:36.520 cannot realistically be created
00:05:39.300 and executed in a matter of days.
00:05:42.540 So the backlash that Blake Lively experienced
00:05:46.160 after the premiere of It Ends With Us,
00:05:49.560 because that's when the smear campaign started,
00:05:52.440 that's impossible for someone to create that.
00:05:55.800 He says that real influence campaigns
00:05:57.960 takes weeks and months to implement.
00:06:01.620 And that's why also this,
00:06:03.260 what she's claiming here is impossible.
00:06:05.540 And if my video wasn't authentic,
00:06:07.980 it wouldn't have spread so quickly.
00:06:10.480 He's not pointing that out,
00:06:11.720 but that's one of my points there.
00:06:13.520 I'm not going to say that there are no stories
00:06:15.580 out there about Blake Lively
00:06:17.220 that is not true.
00:06:20.100 Of course there are.
00:06:21.540 And I know there's a lot of these blind items circulating.
00:06:25.280 People have asked me to cover them,
00:06:26.840 something that I feel a bit reluctant about
00:06:28.960 because there's no sources there.
00:06:30.560 And I think that's also the reason
00:06:32.240 why those stories don't spread as quickly
00:06:35.300 as something like my video did.
00:06:38.320 And that's also something that he points out here.
00:06:41.260 So basically what he's saying here
00:06:42.780 is that these things are industry standard
00:06:45.820 and that the Wayfair parties
00:06:48.060 did nothing out of the ordinary.
00:06:50.800 And that's also why Blake Lively's claims
00:06:54.080 of a smear campaign
00:06:56.460 should basically be tossed out.
00:06:58.640 Also in the response from the Wayfair parties,
00:07:01.280 they're pointing out that all the evidence
00:07:03.120 that Blake Lively wants the judge to look at
00:07:06.220 and to consider are evidence
00:07:08.280 that is not even related to this case.
00:07:11.160 As you know, she tried to drag other people into this 0.96
00:07:13.880 and say, hey, look at Claire Ayoub,
00:07:16.280 who was a director on another movie
00:07:18.680 the Wayfair parties produced.
00:07:21.940 And Claire Ayoub came out and said 0.61
00:07:24.220 that she had some issues,
00:07:27.600 arguments with Justin Baldoni during her movie.
00:07:30.760 There was no SAH, no retaliation, nothing like that.
00:07:33.940 She just said that they had disagreements
00:07:35.980 and that she didn't basically like him.
00:07:38.760 And Wayfair parties are saying,
00:07:40.180 hey, that has nothing to do with this.
00:07:41.780 There was even a recording
00:07:43.140 that Blake Lively wanted to use as their evidence,
00:07:46.680 a recording between this director,
00:07:48.860 Claire Ayoub, and Steve Sarawich,
00:07:50.760 who is one of the founders of the Wayfair parties,
00:07:53.840 where he said that they wanted to defend themselves
00:07:56.760 with everything that they had against Blake Lively
00:08:00.880 if they ever wanted to come after them legally.
00:08:04.380 And somehow that's evidence
00:08:06.380 that Blake Lively wanted to use.
00:08:09.040 They also point out here
00:08:10.540 that a lot of her evidence
00:08:12.240 actually discredit her claims,
00:08:14.840 which I pointed out so many times as well.
00:08:17.600 And as you know,
00:08:18.280 she also tried to drag the Rebel Wilson case into this 0.91
00:08:21.920 and say, hey, look what Melissa Nathan
00:08:24.080 allegedly did over there.
00:08:26.020 Of course, she did that here too. 0.96
00:08:28.580 And the Wayfair parties are saying,
00:08:29.940 BS, you can't use evidence from other cases
00:08:32.920 and from other incidents
00:08:34.280 outside of what happened on this movie
00:08:36.800 and claim that, hey, judge, this is my evidence.
00:08:40.940 It doesn't work like that.
00:08:42.580 So by depending on all this outside evidence
00:08:45.560 that has nothing to do with this case,
00:08:47.200 Wayfair parties are saying to the judge,
00:08:49.920 hey, Blake just admitted that her case is broken.
00:08:55.200 And they're saying that she didn't really argue,
00:08:57.880 like all this stuff that I talked about,
00:08:59.540 Blake Lively being an employee
00:09:01.560 and not being a contractor,
00:09:04.760 which is what she's claiming here.
00:09:06.700 They're saying that they didn't really have
00:09:08.920 any good arguments against that
00:09:11.080 because there's so much evidence
00:09:13.200 pointing at Blake Lively being a contractor here
00:09:16.220 and not an employee.
00:09:18.400 I went through all of that last week.
00:09:20.660 And as I said before,
00:09:21.480 if she can't prove that she was an employee,
00:09:24.400 which everything points in the other direction here,
00:09:27.200 her whole case of retaliation falls apart 0.98
00:09:31.440 because you can't sue your employer
00:09:34.720 as an independent contractor
00:09:37.540 for a toxic work environment and for SH
00:09:41.720 because you have the power to leave
00:09:43.760 and do whatever you want.
00:09:45.480 And as we also know,
00:09:46.440 a big point here is that Blake Lively
00:09:48.280 got more and more control over the movie.
00:09:51.220 And even after she spoke up
00:09:52.880 about this terrible behavior on set,
00:09:57.380 she got more power.
00:10:00.220 And as you know,
00:10:01.000 she was hired as an actress
00:10:02.560 and as an executive producer,
00:10:04.760 which really doesn't have much meaning.
00:10:06.280 But then at the end of the day,
00:10:08.300 she got the producer mark from PGA,
00:10:11.880 from Producer Skills of America,
00:10:13.580 which is a huge achievement,
00:10:15.360 which she also points that out
00:10:17.700 is a huge achievement.
00:10:19.340 That would never have happened
00:10:20.620 to an employee
00:10:21.860 who was just an actress in a movie.
00:10:25.220 And also, as I said on Friday,
00:10:27.680 she filed her taxes
00:10:29.640 as a LLC
00:10:31.680 or as an independent contractor
00:10:34.200 because the Wayfair party said
00:10:35.860 that they gave her a 1099
00:10:37.680 and not a W-2,
00:10:39.740 which is what you fill out
00:10:40.820 as an employee.
00:10:41.920 So everything points to the fact
00:10:43.960 that Blake Lively
00:10:44.780 was not an employee here.
00:10:47.440 And that is super important.
00:10:50.300 Okay, I'm not going to get more into this,
00:10:51.620 but I just wanted to read
00:10:52.420 the beginning of this reply
00:10:53.660 because I love the language
00:10:54.840 they're using here.
00:10:55.900 They're saying that
00:10:56.580 Lively spills lots of ink
00:10:58.560 attempting to conjure up
00:11:00.380 factual disputes,
00:11:01.620 but the material facts
00:11:03.420 are undisputed.
00:11:05.380 Her opposition 0.70
00:11:06.080 and 56.1 response
00:11:08.240 confirmed that
00:11:09.100 she has launched
00:11:10.040 a massive legal campaign
00:11:12.200 to address minor grievances,
00:11:15.600 all of which were resolved
00:11:17.500 during production of the film
00:11:19.080 without the need
00:11:20.060 for any litigation at all.
00:11:23.620 Yes, as I said,
00:11:24.380 this is really well written
00:11:25.300 and it's so easy to understand.
00:11:27.280 So if you want to go
00:11:28.180 and check it out yourself,
00:11:29.560 it's a good read
00:11:30.280 and it's not that long.
00:11:31.620 Anyways, thank you Tanya
00:11:33.480 for sending me this.
00:11:34.840 I think this is so telling.
00:11:37.240 So IMDb did a...
00:11:40.840 They have some news stories
00:11:42.480 or like industry stories
00:11:43.940 on their front page
00:11:45.100 if you go to imdb.com.
00:11:46.960 And one of the stories today
00:11:48.320 is Hollywood power couples.
00:11:51.560 And Tanya went through all of them
00:11:53.820 and so did I.
00:11:55.600 And guess who is missing on the list?
00:11:59.000 Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.
00:12:01.140 There are so many people
00:12:03.220 on this list
00:12:03.820 that I've never even heard about,
00:12:05.720 but they're not there.
00:12:07.800 I find that so telling.
00:12:11.240 And I think this is a signal
00:12:12.800 to Blake and Ryan
00:12:14.900 and it's a signal from Hollywood.
00:12:17.520 I mean, IMDb,
00:12:18.620 it's not like a gossip.
00:12:20.360 IMDb is the business, basically.
00:12:23.420 So for them to actually list up
00:12:25.440 these people and 81 couples,
00:12:27.660 that's a lot of couples. 0.52
00:12:29.680 And Blake Lively
00:12:30.340 and Ryan Reynolds
00:12:30.960 is not part of it.
00:12:31.840 Yes.
00:12:32.340 And if you add the facts
00:12:33.480 that I spoke about the other day
00:12:34.700 that Paramount has now dropped
00:12:36.280 three of Ryan Reynolds' projects
00:12:38.520 and another movie
00:12:40.040 called Animal Friends
00:12:41.420 that was supposed to come out
00:12:43.000 in 2025 with Ryan Reynolds
00:12:44.660 has been postponed
00:12:45.820 for another year.
00:12:47.300 And I think also some people
00:12:48.520 have said that Deadpool 4
00:12:49.900 has been postponed.
00:12:51.040 So all of these are signs
00:12:53.660 that, of course,
00:12:55.540 Hollywood is paying attention here
00:12:57.500 and they're terrified.
00:12:59.180 Yeah, because what does this mean
00:13:00.460 if Blake Lively would be
00:13:01.760 to win this case?
00:13:03.600 I don't think she will, obviously.
00:13:05.620 But still, imagine
00:13:06.820 if a jury would be so blinded
00:13:10.100 by her and Ryan Reynolds' star power
00:13:12.760 that they said,
00:13:13.600 hey, yes, I think she should get
00:13:15.600 $650 million in damages here
00:13:18.740 because someone said
00:13:21.280 that her beanie was sexy on the set
00:13:23.920 and then retaliated against her
00:13:26.360 when she spoke up about it.
00:13:28.740 Can you imagine
00:13:29.480 how many movie sets
00:13:30.860 and directors would get sued?
00:13:33.740 Anyways, before I go,
00:13:34.760 I wanted to mention this article
00:13:36.040 in The Rolling Stone
00:13:36.900 because I'm so happy
00:13:37.880 that Andy Signor
00:13:38.880 from Popcorn Planet
00:13:39.840 got a story about this
00:13:42.120 in traditional media as well
00:13:43.700 because it's so important
00:13:45.120 for all of us
00:13:46.060 what's happening right now.
00:13:47.300 And this story talks about
00:13:48.840 obviously the fact
00:13:49.780 that a judge in Florida
00:13:51.240 said that Andy Signor
00:13:54.960 should not be treated
00:13:57.000 like a journalist
00:13:58.440 so he should not receive
00:13:59.900 reporter's privilege.
00:14:02.480 And I mean, people can argue
00:14:03.780 that if you're on YouTube
00:14:05.040 you shouldn't have
00:14:06.180 reporter privilege
00:14:07.000 but that also means then
00:14:08.640 that other journalists
00:14:10.040 that previously worked
00:14:11.660 for big traditional media
00:14:13.640 like the New York Times
00:14:14.740 or Washington Post
00:14:15.720 or whatever
00:14:16.280 that now is our independents
00:14:18.580 working on, for example,
00:14:20.080 Substack
00:14:20.760 that they should not have
00:14:22.780 reporter privilege either.
00:14:24.480 So the fact that this judge
00:14:26.200 ruled the way she did here 0.99
00:14:27.980 really affects all of us
00:14:30.200 and it really affects free speech
00:14:32.380 and this should have
00:14:33.360 a chilling effect
00:14:34.080 for all journalists
00:14:35.380 not only independent journalists
00:14:37.220 but all journalists
00:14:38.180 that works in traditional media
00:14:39.600 as well.
00:14:40.240 Because if one day
00:14:41.440 you want to go out on your own
00:14:42.940 you know that you could be dragged
00:14:45.360 into major lawsuits like this
00:14:47.860 without being able
00:14:49.080 to defend your sources.
00:14:51.300 That is career ending
00:14:53.240 for a journalist.
00:14:55.040 Like Andy is quoted saying
00:14:56.500 in this article
00:14:57.240 the ramification
00:14:58.320 of what this could be
00:14:59.780 if I don't win this appeal
00:15:01.560 means any digital independent
00:15:03.280 journalist in Florida
00:15:04.380 will now not be a journalist
00:15:06.380 because the judge
00:15:07.340 didn't understand the internet.
00:15:09.560 So true.
00:15:10.520 As I spoke about the other day
00:15:11.880 Andy is appealing this
00:15:13.600 to a higher court
00:15:14.780 and I really hope
00:15:15.900 he wins this
00:15:16.560 and as we all know by now
00:15:18.320 the reason why Blake
00:15:19.940 and her team
00:15:20.760 is going after him
00:15:21.980 is not because they think
00:15:23.680 that he has some information
00:15:25.220 like he's sitting there
00:15:26.840 on the smoking gun
00:15:27.940 that there was a smear campaign.
00:15:30.100 No.
00:15:30.980 It's because they want
00:15:31.780 to punish him
00:15:32.640 and because they want
00:15:33.740 to set an example
00:15:34.760 like don't talk about us
00:15:36.780 because we will go after you.
00:15:39.220 Anyway that's it for me
00:15:40.300 on a Sunday you guys
00:15:41.260 I hope you enjoyed this episode
00:15:42.440 and please subscribe
00:15:43.620 if you haven't
00:15:44.240 hit the notification bell
00:15:45.320 so you never miss an episode
00:15:46.300 of Flawsome Talk
00:15:47.380 and I'll see you tomorrow.
00:15:49.400 Bye.
00:15:49.780 Yeah we Flawsome Talk
00:15:52.180 you would miss something when I was Stephen
00:15:57.580 this episode of Flawsome cognizante
00:15:58.720 that never impeded
00:15:59.680 Bons A dealing with 1.00
00:16:00.960 USB
00:16:01.780 and flake
00:16:03.040 of USB
00:16:04.520 and other people
00:16:06.020 together
00:16:06.560 absolutely
00:16:06.820 that never
00:16:09.120 he worked
00:16:11.620 at high school
00:16:12.780 and I'll see you tomorrow
00:16:14.700 in myygdata
00:16:15.720 and I'll see you tomorrow
00:16:17.140 at