Blake Lively branded a ‘toxic diva’ as experts dissect her latest catastrophic legal move against Justin Baldoni

Blake Lively’s decision to subpoena more than a dozen journalists and small creators has ignited a free speech firestorm—and now, crisis PR expert Eric Schiffer says the move could leave lasting damage to both her brand and her public image.

‘Dragging micro-creators into court over chit-chat is nuclear overkill that screams bully, not brilliance,’ says Schiffer, CEO of Reputation Management Consultants. ‘When you demand IP addresses and PayPal receipts from hobby vloggers, you risk being seen mugging the First Amendment in broad daylight.’

The subpoenas, which target creators with modest followings and include requests for personal information and financial records, have triggered backlash online and sparked concerns about celebrity overreach.

‘Blake’s subpoena blitz paints her with some as a toxic diva mugging creators,’ Schiffer says. ‘Watching a Hollywood millionaire trigger a subpoena bloodbath against hobby vloggers will flip some fans’ love into loathing.’

Lively’s wholesome, approachable public image as one half of Hollywood’s favorite power couple, alongside her husband, Ryan Reynolds, may also be at risk, Schiffer warns.

‘Disney-grade charm mutates into a mutant privacy predator the instant she subpoenas creators’ data and drenches Blake’s rom-com glow in legal napalm,’ he says. ‘This subpoena spree risks turning “America’s sweetheart” into “Big Brother Blake” accented by air striking ants—many fans don’t sip that Kool-Aid. Hauling a channel with 38 subscribers into federal court is the PR equivalent of clubbing baby seals for sport.’

Blake Lively ‘s decision to subpoena more than a dozen indie journalists and small creators has ignited a free speech firestorm; seen in April 2025

While the legal maneuver may be rooted in concerns about misinformation or reputation protection, Schiffer says the strategy could backfire by triggering a viral David-vs.-Goliath narrative.

‘You don’t sue low subscriber fleas with flamethrowers—unless you crave a David-vs-Goliath backlash or you are absolutely sure you have the goods,’ he says. ‘Every subpoenaed small blogger becomes an epic-scale martyr; their followers swarm like digital hornets.’

According to Schiffer, the long-term risk isn’t just bad headlines, it’s locking in an unflattering narrative.

‘Baldoni didn’t need a counter-campaign with this tactic; Blake’s attorneys handed him the slingshot,’ he says. ‘Blake’s protective-order win rings hollow when she’s busy rifling through strangers’ Gmail. Over-controlling celebs can take their brands into a death spiral when trying to muzzle critics as it can cement a stone-cold crazy narrative that sticks.’

If Lively hopes to regain control of the narrative, Schiffer says she needs to act fast and avoid appearing defensive or evasive. 

His recommendation? ‘Drop a surgical two-line holding blast: “These subpoenas are evidentiary, not a witch-hunt; Blake 100% backs free speech.” That helps plug the news vacuum before it turns radioactive.’

Remaining silent, he adds, would be a critical error.

‘Silence is catastrophic; it lets YouTube lawyers draft the script and tattoo “Bully” across Blake’s brand,’ Schiffer says. ‘Stay mute and you trigger the full Streisand avalanche.’

Crisis PR expert Eric Schiffer (seen in 2014) has weighed in on how her latest legal move could leave lasting damage to both her brand and her public image

Jason Mudd, CEO/Managing Partner at Axia Public Relations, pointed out that the subpoenas send a ‘chilling message: dissent will be met with legal intimidation.’

‘Even if legally permissible, the optics are poor. It appears like a power play, not a fact-finding measure. This approach may erode goodwill and invite scrutiny about intent: Was the goal justice or silence?’ he added. 

‘Public figures already operate under a microscope. Targeting micro-influencers, including those with limited followers, might appear excessive, possibly punitive,’ Mudd stressed. ‘If the subpoenas appear more about optics control than substantive legal merit, the court of public opinion will be less forgiving.’ 

As for how this could have been handled differently, Mudd suggested issuing a  ‘clear, public-facing rebuttal addressing false claims without targeting individuals.’

He also advised Lively to ‘engage legal remedies only when truly necessary, proportionate, and strategic.’ 

David B. Hoppe, a California-based attorney and the founder of Gamma Law, also weighed in on the line between protecting a client’s interests in a civil case and potentially infringing on the rights of independent creators and journalists. 

‘Subpoenas such as this can create a chilling effect, discouraging individuals from exercising their rights to free speech and commentary out of fear of legal repercussions or harassment,’ he told DailyMail.com. 

‘Dragging micro-creators into court over chit-chat is nuclear overkill that screams bully, not brilliance,’ says Schiffer, CEO of Reputation Management Consultants (Baldoni seen last year)

Hoppe continued: ‘With respect to these subpoenas, the court will need to balance the importance to Lively to support her claim of a coordinated campaign by Baldoni to discredit her against the free speech rights of these content creators.’ 

As for whether this situation could set a concerning precedent for how civil litigants approach online commentary, Hoppe said: ‘If broad subpoenas like those in this dispute go unchallenged, they risk normalizing a litigation tactic that treats routine online commentary as potential evidence, encouraging well‑funded plaintiffs to demand personal data from platforms whenever criticism appears.’

‘Such fishing expeditions shift discovery from fact‑finding to intimidation, particularly when the targets are small creators with minimal reach and no clear role in the underlying dispute,’ he explained.

The possible consequence would be ‘independent voices self‑censor to avoid legal costs, and public debate narrows to outlets that can afford regular counsel.’

DailyMail.com has reached out to Lively and Baldoni’s reps for comment. 

If Lively hopes to regain control of the narrative, Schiffer says she needs to act fast and avoid appearing defensive or evasive

Last week, Lively caused an uproar on social media after sending a subpoena to Google asking for information about the accounts of pro-Justin Baldoni YouTubers.

Influencers targeted with Lively’s subpoenas include conservative firebrand Candace Owens, Andy Signore and reportedly celebrity gossip hound Perez Hilton.

The furious content creators are calling the legal probe an ‘invasion of privacy’, ‘shady’ and claim it is a bid to silence them from criticizing the Gossip Girl star during her infamous lawsuit with It Ends With Us co-star Baldoni.

Some of the contacted YouTubers are influential with hundreds of thousands of subscribers, the most well-known being Candace Owens.

Others have less than 300 followers and say they can’t afford an attorney to fight the demand for data.

A subpoena to Google dated July 3 and obtained by DailyMail.com demands that at least 16 content creators turn over their email, phone number, physical address and payment details for their premium accounts – including credit card or bank account numbers, blockchain addresses and a log of every session they’ve had since May 1, 2024, with exact dates and times.

”Baldoni didn’t need a counter-campaign with this tactic; Blake’s attorneys handed him the slingshot,’ he says. ‘Blake’s protective-order win rings hollow when she’s busy rifling through strangers’ Gmail,’ Schiffer argued; Baldoni seen in 2024

Andy Signore, host of YouTube channel Popcorned Planet, told DailyMail.com that he believes Lively is trying to unmask It Ends With Us crew members who spoke out to him anonymously for his upcoming documentary series.

‘It’s shocking to be honest,’ Signore said. ‘Not because I have anything to hide, but because she thinks she can just bully and intimidate independent journalists. I won’t let her.

‘My lawyers and I will be fighting all of it.’

Florida-based Lauren Neidigh, 32, has a job helping psychology patients help get their health insurance claims paid.

In her spare time, she posts videos about the filings from the Lively-Baldoni alleged sexual harassment and smear campaign lawsuit on a small channel with around 20,000 subscribers.

When she received the notice, she couldn’t believe it.

‘When I first got the email, I was so shocked,’ she told DailyMail.com. ‘I had a couple of my lawyer friends look at it. I was like, what do I even do about this?

‘Now we’ve determined this is real and not a scam, I intend to file my own motion to quash and fight her myself.’

Last week, Lively caused an uproar on social media after sending a subpoena to Google asking for information about the accounts of pro-Justin Baldoni YouTubers 

Andy Signore, host of Popcorned Planet, believes Lively has more nefarious intentions with this newest move, claiming that Lively is alleged using the subpoena to unmask crew members who spoke to him anonymously in his upcoming documentary

The notices of the subpoena to Google were delivered on email to the YouTubers via their Google accounts and were addressed from Lively’s attorney Esra Hudson at Manatt Phelps & Phillips.

But Signore said he was then told by Manatt’s firm that the requests were not real.

‘My lawyer spoke to Blake Lively’s lawyers,’ said Signore in a rant on YouTube. ‘We called Esra’s office, and they told him twice that it was fake.

‘This is so damn shady.

‘I am furious at Blake Lively and her law firm about the Google subpoena,’ he added in an interview with DailyMail.com.

‘There was a whole confusion around whether this was a real notification,’ said Neidigh. ‘I didn’t know if I needed to do anything, or how I should deal with this.’

Lively’s lawyer, Esra Hudson, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

On July 11, Google customer service replied to Signore’s posts on X, confirming that the notification he received via his Google account ‘is legitimate and was sent as part of our user notice policy for legal matters.’

‘But when I read through, I thought some of the stuff doesn’t even make sense. And then I started to put the pieces together when I read the pieces after that.

The notices were sent out to the YouTubers via their Google accounts and demanded 16 content creators to produce their private information – which initially led many to believe that it was a phishing scam

The 26-page subpoena lists 16 YouTubers, saying Google is ‘commanded’ to provide information by July 16 at 5pm.

It asks for ‘All subscriber information, for the username [YouTube user] associated with YouTube and Google Pay, including but not limited to: (a) the first and last name; (b) registered email address(es); (c) phone numbers); (d) physical address; (e) backup/recovery email address or phone number; (f) subscriber registration information; (g) length of service (including start date) and any premium services utilized; (h) means and source of payment for such services, if applicable (including any credit card or bank account number, or public blockchain data and addresses); (i) Login Internet Protocol (IP) address used for initial registration; and (j) IP address used from May 1, 2024 to the present, with dates and session times; and (k) video upload IP addresses.’

Neidigh said she thinks Lively is trying to prove a conspiracy about Baldoni paying content creators to smear the actress.

‘Maybe she thinks it’ll show people were paid or benefitting in some way to cover her case, because she says the smear campaign is ongoing,’ she said.

‘That’s absolutely not true. I used to really like her movies, and I watched Gossip Girl of course. I really like Ryan Reynolds’ movies. So, I had an open mind when I started looking into all of this.

‘But when I read through, I thought some of the stuff doesn’t even make sense. And then I started to put the pieces together when I read the pieces after that.

‘So, there’s never been an incentive for me other than I’m interested in her lawsuit.’

Signore believes the subpoena is a tactic to extract information from him and potentially blacklist crew members who appeared in his documentary It Ends With Justice, where they spoke out against Lively with blurred faces and masks 

Signore said he believes Lively has a further motive to get information from him.

‘Aside from my reporting on Popcorned Planet, I am also directing a documentary: ‘It Ends With Justice’. In it we located and spoke to various crew members from IEWU anonymously,’ he said.

‘These crew members were disgusted by what Blake was putting out in the press about the filming, and they wanted to share their side. But they are terrified of being blacklisted by Ryan, CAA etc.

‘So, they appeared anonymously, blurred and with masks on to protect their identities. I believe Blake and Ryan want those sources. I will not betray those sources.

‘This machine is terrifying. They are shady. They clearly will do anything to mess with us. It is unnerving what they will do.’

One notice recipient, Norwegian entertainment journalist Kjersti Flaa, was previously linked to claims of an anti-Lively smear campaign orchestrated by Baldoni.

A December New York Times story about the alleged plot mentions Flaa’s interview with Lively, while describing alleged ‘negative publicity’ that was ‘seeded’ or ‘amplified’ by Baldoni’s publicists.

DailyMail.com has reached out to Lively and Baldoni’s reps for comment; seen in 2024

‘At no point did anyone contact me from his team or from her team,’ Flaa told the Hollywood Reporter earlier this year. ‘The thing is, she smeared herself in that video, and people reacted to it online. [The reason] for her becoming unpopular is because of her own behavior.’

Flaa and another creator, Katie Joy whose YouTube channel Without A Crystal Ball has 440,000 subscribers, have offered to help smaller creators fight the subpoena.

‘We are all on one subpoena and are strength in numbers,’ she posted on her Instagram account. ‘Both Kjersti and I have attorneys working on this and believe if we can do this all together we can not only save some of the smaller creators money but also show strength to the court that we are not paid bots or journalists working for Baldoni.’

One smalltime creator, ‘SophieUnsual’, accused Lively of ‘punching down’ by including her the demand. 

‘Real and normal people’s lives are being impacted financially because of Blake Lively’s legal saga,’ she wrote on Instagram. ‘It’s punching down on an individual level.’

Neidigh said she believes the subpoena will have a chilling effect on independent creators covering the case.

In December, the Gossip Girl star accused her It Ends With Us co-star and director of sexual harassment and retaliation; seen earlier this year

‘When you start going after people speaking their mind on their own platforms, you scare people out of doing that.

‘That fear is by design, to keep people silent.

‘It’s a little intimidating. But I want to stick up for myself in this way.’

She added that she thinks Lively’s subpoena could be retaliation for the fiery criticism Neidigh lobbed at the actress in her videos – including calling her a ‘c**t’.

‘It feels like revenge to me,’ she said.

Another contacted content creator, ‘ExistingToThrive’, posted a video on TikTok slamming Lively.

‘The whole idea that this is all misogyny,’ she said. ‘We don’t hate women. We just hate Blake.’

Baldoni has vehemently denied Lively’s allegations against him; seen in 2024

Owens, Hilton and Signore reportedly received more extensive demands than other smaller creators, demanding they turn over any communications they have had with Baldoni or his co-defendants in the lawsuit with Lively.

Owens and Signore say they have been served directly with these more extensive subpoenas.

But on Monday Hilton said on his podcast that he is yet to be served with any legal demands, despite a TMZ report that Lively is in the process of subpoenaing him.

Owens responded to her notice of the subpoena with a video to her 4.4 million followers, saying she was ‘elated’ and ‘honored’ to receive the legal demand.

‘It feels like a graduation ceremony of sorts for me and all of my podcast listeners,’ she said.

‘This is meant to be a hit. It’s supposed to make us look bad.

‘I have not the slightest idea what I am being subpoenaed for as I knew none of these parties when their respective lawsuits were filed.’

Owens complained that news of her subpoena appeared to have been leaked to TMZ before she even received the legal document.

Neidigh said she will be filing a motion to quash on her own, without a lawyer representing her.

On Thursday, Lively will deposed in Manhattan (seen in April 2025)

Popular YouTuber Zack Peter who covers Lively’s case extensively slammed her for issuing the subpoena, but said he was perplexed over why he didn’t receive one too.

‘I think Blake is trying to scare creators and get them to stop talking about her. Luckily, I’m not easily scared,’ he said.

‘Bring on the subpoenas because I have ZERO intention of letting this story go. I’m in it until the end.

‘I think Blake Lively studied Amber Heard’s case and is doing everything she can to protect herself. Part of that is scaring people that are covering this case.

‘But we’re not part of Hollywood. She has no control over us. She can’t scare us. We have each other’s backs, and we look out for each other. We’re not fighting for Baldoni. We’re fighting for justice.’