Flaawsome Talk with Kjersti Flaa - The JUDGE is DONE with BLAKE !!

00:00:00.000 Judge Lyman says, maybe mass audiences developed a negative view of Miss Lively.

00:00:10.980 Hi and welcome to Blossom Talk. I'm Kersti Floor, journalist, Hollywood truth teller and your voice

00:00:16.100 of reason in a town built on delusion. Okay, so I had a very entertaining morning reading the live

00:00:22.700 tweets from inner city press who were present at the meeting, the conference this morning

00:00:28.540 in the courthouse in New York, where both parties met to discuss what experts to allow into trial

00:00:36.400 and also Blake Lively's damages. I'll go through some of the stuff that went on in this meeting

00:00:41.820 and what really caught my attention. Also, the Daily Mail is reporting on how Blake Lively

00:00:46.620 is planning to use Johnny Depp at her trial. She's trying to use the same strategy as Amber Heard.

00:00:53.960 I don't think this is a very smart choice, Blake.

00:00:57.100 Who wants to be associated with Amber Heard?

00:00:59.920 And as far as I remember, Johnny Depp actually won that case.

00:01:03.520 And also a big shout out to Katie in Kansas City, Katie in KC.

00:01:09.620 You should follow her on Instagram, by the way.

00:01:11.560 She has the best little segments there.

00:01:13.340 Anyway, she was outside the courthouse and she got to ask Sigrid McCowley some questions.

00:01:20.780 This is truly funny.

00:01:22.000 And also, let's look at how Aubrey Plaza was responding to Seth Meyers when he congratulated

00:01:28.180 her on her pregnancy. Was this a dig at Blake? It certainly looks like it. Okay, so first,

00:01:34.900 a shout out again to Katie in Kansas City, who was outside the courthouse and caught Sigrid

00:01:40.560 McCowley and asked her for a comment. This really made my day. So thank you so much, Katie, for doing

00:01:47.180 this so Sigrid arrived looking fantastic and her newly brushed out not so natural blonde hair and

00:01:54.880 she stopped by Katie who asked her if she had a comment and she said this Sigrid any comment for

00:02:00.840 today well Blake's waited a long time to get to this moment so uh you know she's ready for this

00:02:08.180 to stand up for herself and others and deal with the horrific weaponization of the internet that's

00:02:14.540 happens okay she's ready yes Blake Lively has waited for this for a really long time and she's

00:02:21.980 finally here now and she's ready to stand up for herself and others they keep adding other people

00:02:28.540 into this now I don't know who these others are at the moment there are no people out there who

00:02:33.040 can identify with this situation Blake I'm sorry no one can see themselves in your story as you

00:02:39.160 said in that statement, not gonna happen. And Sigrid called this the horrific weaponization

00:02:45.160 of the internet. Really? Who has weaponized the internet here? Who has used the internet

00:02:52.260 the entire time to try and smear Justy Baldoni when she asked her co-stars to unfollow him on

00:02:59.960 Instagram? Isn't that a weaponization of the internet? Also, I feel like if you're using the

00:03:05.700 internet to sell your image and to sell products and then you turn around and as soon as it doesn't

00:03:11.220 go your way you're saying it's the internet that's the big monster the internet is not one big thing

00:03:17.760 the internet is filled up also with real human beings in this case the internet is real people

00:03:25.200 real people real people who actually reacted to Blake Lively's own behavior and her own words

00:03:31.800 Yes. So that made my day. Anyways, let's look at what happened in this pre-trial conference this

00:03:37.920 morning. So thanks to Inner City Press, who actually live tweeted from inside the courthouse

00:03:43.160 today, we got to hear a little bit of what happened because this was not open to the public. So you

00:03:47.820 couldn't dial in and listen in. So they started off talking about Blake Lively's major losses

00:03:52.820 to her other companies. You know, she wants Wayfair parties to pay for her loss that she claims that

00:03:59.520 she lost in business revenue from Betty Buzz, Betty Booz, and her haircare line, Blake Brown.

00:04:07.140 And Wayfair Party's attorney said here that Betty Buzz did not succeed for reasons that have nothing

00:04:12.860 to do with the defendants. She has a track record of brands not succeeding. Her expert, Mr. Jeffrey

00:04:19.340 Kinrich, didn't even consider or know this about Lolhata. She may not have standing. So they're

00:04:27.000 basically saying that Blake Lively has a track record of not succeeding in business. And the

00:04:33.380 Wayfair parties have pointed this out in another filing where they're referring to what actually

00:04:38.700 happened with Betty Buzz, which is the non-alcoholic side of her company. And it says

00:04:44.900 here, by late 2024, management had doubts about the profitability and sustainability of Betty

00:04:52.560 bust for reasons unrelated to the online manipulation. In 2025, management has decided

00:05:00.880 to shut down the brand for reasons unrelated to the online manipulation. And then the judge is

00:05:07.440 saying here, isn't she claiming lost profits? And the Wayfair lawyers is saying people didn't like

00:05:13.040 the companies because people didn't like Ms. Lively. She switched to it harms my business

00:05:18.400 reputation. The case law is clear. Lost profits as a shareholder, no standing. So they're saying

00:05:25.600 that people actually didn't buy her products because they just didn't like her. And then

00:05:29.760 they're talking about lost income in terms of what she would have made as an actress. And she 1.00

00:05:35.560 has an expert here called Richard Marks. I remember that name. That sounds like a pop star from the

00:05:40.460 80s or 90s or something, doesn't it? Anyways, so he says here that she's going to have an income 0.83

00:05:47.600 of 132 million dollars in five years and the Wayfair parties are pointing out here she only 0.73

00:05:53.720 made 20 million dollars on her last four movies so 20 million dollars on her last four movies

00:06:00.000 and he's saying that she's going to make 132 million in the next five years and he's also

00:06:05.060 claiming that there was a sequel to It Ends With Us and the Wayfair party said it is never going

00:06:11.860 to happen there's never going to be a sequel so now we know that for sure and I also heard that

00:06:18.340 Colleen Hoover's been talking about that that she said she only wrote the sequel for her fans she

00:06:24.160 had never planned for another movie and now we know that is never going to happen and even though

00:06:28.720 the Wayfair parties have the right to it I'm sure they're not very interested in making a sequel to

00:06:34.060 this film and they're also bringing up another point here the Wayfair lawyer is saying that

00:06:38.600 executives at Sony said that Blake was a terrorist. So this sequel, again, they're saying

00:06:45.000 is not going to happen. Mr. Marks claims it would be a blockbuster, but he's no expert on that.

00:06:52.460 He corroborated his findings with statements of her agent and manager. It's unrealistic,

00:06:59.420 they say. Please toss out this expert as well. So he's just saying that he think it starts with us

00:07:05.960 is going to be a blockbuster.

00:07:07.940 I've read reviews of the book as well,

00:07:10.000 and people are saying this book was completely unnecessary.

00:07:13.700 And also, as you know,

00:07:15.080 Justin actually rewrote the ending of the movie,

00:07:17.980 which really annoyed Colin Hoover,

00:07:20.080 because he wanted to write Ryle completely out of Lily's life,

00:07:25.160 which would be healthier for her to move forward

00:07:28.060 without having this man in her life.

00:07:30.280 And Colin Hoover didn't like that.

00:07:32.900 So I feel at that point,

00:07:34.260 Justin made a decision like,

00:07:35.960 I don't want to do this.

00:07:36.940 And then the Lively's lawyer is saying here that the product made 7 million and exceeded

00:07:42.820 the expectations.

00:07:44.680 I don't know what product he's talking about, but Judge Lyman says here, I don't read it

00:07:49.680 that way.

00:07:50.700 And Lively's lawyer is saying, there's always some discrepancies.

00:07:54.360 It wasn't wildly off the mark.

00:07:56.220 We allege retaliation started August 10th.

00:07:59.600 The few days are key.

00:08:01.600 So they're basically saying the retaliation started the day that I published the interview with Blake.

00:08:08.420 And Lively's lawyer continues to say the jury has to have some basis to estimate the reputational harm.

00:08:14.740 These are product lines that were based off her line.

00:08:18.360 The beverage line, the harm is direct evidence of the value of her reputation.

00:08:24.320 And then the judge says, you've got two minutes.

00:08:27.040 I don't know what happened in those two minutes, but they're basically saying that it's all Baldoni's fault.

00:08:31.600 that she failed at in business.

00:08:34.600 And Lively's attorneys keep doubling down there

00:08:36.860 on how much success Blake had ahead of her.

00:08:39.300 He's saying that Mr. Marks based his opinion

00:08:41.980 on a lengthy history of Ms. Lively's earnings.

00:08:45.360 And based on the success of It Ends With Us, 0.72

00:08:47.640 it would have opened new opportunities.

00:08:49.880 He has 50 years industry experience, they're saying here.

00:08:53.640 And Judge Lyman says, was it a blockbuster success?

00:08:58.200 And Lively's lawyer is saying,

00:09:00.180 that's up to the jury that the expert is not required to say he identified the maximum

00:09:07.260 number of opportunities for an actress of her stature as you know she hasn't had any blockbuster

00:09:13.520 successes before it ends with us so now they're claiming here that all her movies in the future

00:09:20.280 according to this expert would be blockbuster successes and they're also saying here that the

00:09:26.600 There's evidence of Mr. Baldoni saying that Blake wanted to direct

00:09:31.280 and he was happy for her to direct the next movie.

00:09:34.720 He did say that in a red carpet interview,

00:09:37.580 but I think at that point he was being sarcastic.

00:09:41.500 We do have it starts with us,

00:09:43.140 so I'm hoping to see you back in the double duty role.

00:09:46.140 I think there are better people for that one.

00:09:48.840 I think there are better people for that one.

00:09:50.240 Justin.

00:09:50.900 I think Blake Lively is ready to direct.

00:09:52.320 That's what I think. 0.99

00:09:53.560 He's like, I've had it with this woman.

00:09:55.640 I don't want anything more to do with her and maybe that's also why he just like wrote Ryle

00:10:00.860 off the entire movie because he's like I don't want anything more to do with anything with this

00:10:05.760 woman or Colin Hoover and now they're saying that he was serious that he wanted Blake to direct the

00:10:11.860 next movie I mean come on and then they come to the manipulation of social media so Wayfair is

00:10:19.180 saying in their defense that they don't want this expert, Mr. Kaluta, Kolotta, Mr. C, that I spoke

00:10:26.080 about on Sunday in my episode with Magnus, where I went through the algorithms of my YouTube and I

00:10:31.380 compared it to the data that Mr. Kaluta found. And he's saying, and Wayfair Party's attorney is

00:10:37.220 saying that her experts say they detected manipulation of social media, but the measurements

00:10:43.180 are not probative of anything relevant in the case.

00:10:46.920 I'll start with Koloda.

00:10:48.600 And the judge is asking, do you seek exclusion of him?

00:10:51.240 And they say yes.

00:10:52.180 And then they say Ms. Lively's expert relies on TikTok comment scores.

00:10:56.320 It is not probative.

00:10:57.960 Every single ratio or metric is not probative.

00:11:01.340 And Judge Lyman says, let's focus on TikTok.

00:11:03.780 Do you dispute he has offered enough evidence?

00:11:06.380 And they say, we dispute it.

00:11:08.140 And the judge is pointing out that this expert is saying

00:11:10.940 that there were an unusual number of likes on the comments rather than the posts and wafer is saying

00:11:17.760 that unusual doesn't mean inauthentic users sometimes react unusually to celebrity feuds

00:11:24.560 he focused on certain hashtags with the top comment score elevated and as i spoke about in

00:11:30.700 that episode as well you can't make something go viral by focusing on the top comments of a youtube

00:11:38.480 video you can't just like that enough times and then that would actually influence the algorithms

00:11:43.640 in any way it won't and then they're going to another expert called professor maizlin and their

00:11:49.520 point and the wafer parties is saying you know this expert as well as all the other experts

00:11:54.120 ignored the fact that blake niley was promoting her alcohol brand and her hair care line in the

00:12:02.140 promotion of a movie about dv they didn't mention that anywhere in their findings they didn't

00:12:07.480 mention why people actually said that she was tone deaf. And then they're also criticizing her,

00:12:12.980 I think, for using ChatGPT as her tool to find these findings. And they're saying she certainly

00:12:19.640 did not look at 1.1 million posts herself. And the judge is asking Blake Lively's team here,

00:12:25.900 any more studies that you can actually point to here? And they say, just three. We have a wealth

00:12:32.720 of material from the defendants that Mr. Wallace was engaged in manipulating the comment sections.

00:12:39.360 Again, you know they have a mountain of evidence. They've been saying this the whole time and as you

00:12:44.520 know Jed Wallace was dismissed from this lawsuit and they have absolutely no evidence. They have

00:12:50.180 no hard evidence that anything suspicious was going on behind the scenes. Then my favorite part

00:12:56.860 from this entire meeting comes up, Judge Lyman says, maybe mass audiences developed a negative

00:13:03.900 view of Miss Lively. And they're like, and Lively's lawyer is saying, why only in August of 2024?

00:13:13.660 There was a video, then a comment that her husband wrote a whole scene. It got more engagement. There

00:13:19.460 is evidence of Jed Wallace on Ryan Reynolds. So this is the tweets I'm reading, by the way,

00:13:25.080 So they're not exactly quotes from what happened inside.

00:13:28.480 But basically, Lively's team is arguing here that.

00:13:31.740 So no, it wasn't that the audience developed this negative view on Lively.

00:13:35.820 It was Jed Wallace who manipulated everything behind the scenes.

00:13:39.320 And then they're coming back to Colotta's findings on my video.

00:13:43.920 They're saying Dr. Colotta has an opinion about YouTube comments through the YouTube API about the little bump.

00:13:51.160 He tracked bully-related posts.

00:13:53.200 There were 14 before August 14 and then 700 after.

00:13:58.400 This is the temporal fingerprint useful to the jury.

00:14:01.840 They're not saying that this actually is a measurement that is reliable.

00:14:07.420 They're just saying that we want to show this to the jury that people called her a bully.

00:14:12.580 And the more people who watched the video, the more people called her a bully.

00:14:16.620 Yeah, that's real evidence.

00:14:18.060 And Lively's team is also complaining here that a professor called Alexander that Baldoni's team was using has changed something in her report and they can't depose her after they've changed this and that's why they want her out and blah, blah, blah.

00:14:34.720 And Judge Lyman is saying, you're out of time.

00:14:37.080 Finish your sentence.

00:14:38.360 And then the Wayfair parties added this.

00:14:40.360 Plaintiff's council claims these negative themes were absent before April of 2024.

00:14:46.180 so there were no commentary no negative commentary about Blake before this date and then they're

00:14:53.240 bringing up how Blake Lively bullied Princess Catherine here and that's also not been taken

00:14:59.080 into consideration by this professor that she's actually been called a bully before and of course

00:15:04.920 if you already witnessed someone being bullied like they're saying here that she did with

00:15:09.680 Catherine Princess Catherine then when she did it again in my video they're like oh okay now it's

00:15:16.000 a pattern. She is a bully. Of course, that's not something that this expert mentioned. And then 0.98

00:15:21.420 they're arguing back and forth here about what Blake Lively did when she filed her lawsuits

00:15:27.640 because it's because they have evidence that Blake shared her story and her findings with

00:15:34.420 the New York Times before she filed that CRD complaint in California. As you know, first she

00:15:39.740 filed the CRD complaint here in California, and then she filed the lawsuit in New York.

00:15:45.040 And Wayfair parties have the metadata from the article and probably other things.

00:15:49.820 So they know that she actually talked to the press before she filed the CRD complaint.

00:15:54.880 And they're also pointing out that their lawsuit was dismissed against Blake.

00:15:59.080 You know, Justin Baldoni and the Wayfair party's lawsuit against her in the New York Times was dismissed back in June.

00:16:04.160 But it was not because it was frivolous or baseless.

00:16:07.240 It was just on technicalities.

00:16:09.840 And they're saying that because of that, they should also be able to argue their point of views in front of a jury and what actually happened on their side.

00:16:19.620 And then Lively's team is pushing back here and saying that she had the legal right to file her complaint and talk about it publicly.

00:16:25.860 And that shouldn't be used against her.

00:16:28.540 Then Lyman is asking, if I agree with you, does that mean that defense can't even argue that she's lying?

00:16:35.680 And that's important because that means that the judge is showing that he's not willing to completely protect her version of events here.

00:16:43.840 He's allowing them to also share their version of events.

00:16:48.080 And he even says there's evidence on both sides.

00:16:51.380 He also said here, according to the tweets, that I ruled on technical grounds.

00:16:56.040 they still have an appeal reminding everyone that the Wayfair parties can still appeal

00:17:02.580 their ruling, his ruling against Blake. Also interesting, so Lively's attorneys here are

00:17:10.280 saying that we'd like to seal the birth video. They do not want the birth video to be shown

00:17:16.660 at trial. That's how I read it anyways. And the Wayfair lawyers are saying we don't see a need

00:17:23.640 to seal it and judge Lyman says so it's resolved so the reason of course why Blake Lively's team

00:17:30.400 wants to seal the birth video is because if it's shown in front of a jury the jury will think

00:17:35.820 oh that's a woman giving birth not that it's corn as Blake Lively was saying I have to use that

00:17:42.660 word because I can't use the real word here on YouTube but you get the idea it's so funny that

00:17:47.720 Blake wants to seal the evidence she has against someone while the defendants are saying no we want

00:17:54.320 everyone to see this and at the end of this meeting Lively's attorneys were asked how long

00:17:59.080 they're seeing this trial to go on for and they are saying that they needed 15 days which basically

00:18:04.940 means three weeks because it's only five days working days in a week and both sides here should

00:18:11.380 get the same amount of time but I think they asked also for them to get more time than the

00:18:18.100 defense here and if the defense also would get 15 days that means basically a six weeks trial

00:18:25.340 I don't think that's going to happen because the judge is probably going to cut it down

00:18:30.060 so I'm sure we're going to hear more about this soon the judge also said that he was working

00:18:34.700 really hard on the motions in limine what evidence that he will allow to go to trial and what he's

00:18:41.800 not going to allow also these expert reports he's also going to rule on that who's going to be alive

00:18:47.940 to be to testify and who's not anyways so tmz picks this up and wrote this headline saying

00:18:54.640 justin baldoni blake lively's brands bust aren't my fault she's bad at business yeah not a great

00:19:01.980 headline for Blake Lively. As they pointed out here, you know, she's never succeeded at any

00:19:06.960 businesses that she started. So for her to claim that she would make all this money from this, 1.00

00:19:12.660 it's just BS. Anyways, let's get into this story from Daily Mail saying Blake Lively drags shocking

00:19:18.680 Johnny Depp Amber Heard claims into legal war with Justin Baldoni. Blake Lively is maneuvering

00:19:25.260 to bring one of Hollywood's most explosive courtroom battles into her own legal war 0.96

00:19:30.160 with Justin Baldoni the actress plans to invoke Johnny Depp's blockbuster defamation case against

00:19:36.080 ex-wife Amber Heard in her upcoming trial arguing she was subjected to a similar wave

00:19:42.040 of online backlash and they're saying that Amber Heard argued that she was subjected to an online

00:19:48.580 smear campaign organized by Depp's team that shredded her reputation and then they're attaching

00:19:54.560 this from Blake's filings here, her evidence that Melissa Nathan, who works for TAG, that crisis PR

00:20:02.440 management company, also worked for Johnny Depp. It's nothing new here. We actually knew about this

00:20:07.980 already. But of course, she's trying to bring other cases into her case because she doesn't 1.00

00:20:11.640 have any evidence. And neither did Amber Heard, by the way. So I don't think this is a very smart 0.92

00:20:17.200 move because Amber Heard was blaming everything on bots without having any evidence that there

00:20:23.260 ever were any bots hating on her and now Blake wants to use this as evidence in her case and as

00:20:29.680 we all know what happened to Johnny Depp he actually won this case so this is not a very

00:20:35.720 smart move if you ask me PR wise why do you want to be identified with an actress who had to move

00:20:44.700 abroad because people couldn't stand her anymore why would you do that if you want to get your

00:20:51.380 reputation back. And they're also saying how wayfair parties responded to this and saying

00:20:56.840 that the wayfair parties are seeking to introduce news stories that resurfaced in the summer of 2024

00:21:02.300 to show she was already known as a mean girl. Baldoni's lawyer wrote, evidence of Lively's

00:21:07.900 pre-existing reputation is not being offered for the truth that she's a mean girl bully, 1.00

00:21:14.100 difficult to work with, or tone deaf. But to establish Lively's reputation prior to the

00:21:20.400 alleged smear campaign to show that defendants alleged conduct did not cause further harm to her

00:21:25.600 existing reputation. As I said before, this was just a reminder for people when they saw her 0.94

00:21:31.600 behavior during the press tour. That was just a reminder for people what they've already had

00:21:36.680 witnessed with from her own actions before this happened, that she was a mean girl and a bully 0.99

00:21:43.560 and tone deaf. Anyways, a few of you guys sent me this clip from Audrey Plaza, who was on Seth 0.96

00:21:50.200 myers and she was asked about her pregnancy and when i watched it as well i do agree it seems like

00:21:56.300 she's taking a dig at blake lively when asked about this as you know blake lively was also on

00:22:02.000 seth myers when she was pregnant and she was like oh you shouldn't ask a woman about that and you

00:22:06.580 have a baby on the way congratulations what makes you say that you know you don't ever say that to

00:22:09.860 a woman yeah so let me know what you think after watching this is it safe to assume my dear friend

00:22:15.380 Aubrey that you were with child how dare you oh ask a woman that oh no did I sounds familiar

00:22:23.620 congrats on your little bump Aubrey Plaza I thought this was really funny but anyways

00:22:29.860 that's it for me today you guys I'll keep you posted on everything I hear and read and see

00:22:35.300 and please keep sending me tips as well to flawsome talk at gmail.com and thanks again

00:22:41.520 for watching and if you haven't subscribed yet, please do hit the notification bell so you never

00:22:46.160 miss an episode of Flawsome Talk and I'll see you soon. Bye!

Flaawsome Talk with Kjersti Flaa - April 29, 2026

The JUDGE is DONE with BLAKE !!

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript