Disclaimer: The following analysis is based on rumors, unverified claims, and commentary by a political commentator, not on verified court evidence or official statements from Blake Lively or Justin Baldoni. The legal dispute officially revolves around allegations of harassment, creative control, and contractual breaches, with both sides vehemently denying the other’s claims and pursuing lawsuits/countersuits.

Candace Owens Dives Into Blake Lively & Justin Baldoni Legal Drama

The already complex legal feud between Hollywood stars Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni has taken a highly personal and widely scrutinized turn with the public commentary of political figure Candace Owens. Owens has suggested that the animosity and legal conflict may stem not just from professional disagreements but from a core issue of unrequited personal feelings on Lively’s part.

Owens’s highly publicized remarks propose that Lively harbored romantic feelings for Baldoni during the early stages of their collaboration on It Ends With Us, feelings that Baldoni, a married man, did not reciprocate. This alleged rejection, Owens suggests, could have quietly transformed into resentment and professional animosity, thus providing the underlying emotional context for the subsequent legal battle over contracts, creative control, and alleged harassment.

The Unverified Theory: Rejection, Resentment, and Revenge

The core of Owens’s theory, which has gone viral across social media, is as follows:

Unreciprocated Affection: Lively developed a personal attachment to Baldoni, fueled by on-set chemistry or immersion in her role.
The Rejection: Baldoni, committed to his marriage and maintaining professionalism, refused to reciprocate or acknowledge the personal connection.
The Reaction: The rejection, according to this theory, was transformed into professional conflict and an escalating desire for creative control or retribution, manifesting in the current lawsuit.

Supporters of this narrative point to perceived subtle on-set chemistry, while critics vehemently dismiss it as baseless gossip and opportunism, arguing that a star with Lively’s polished image and family devotion would never be involved in such a personal scandal without concrete evidence emerging long ago.

The Legal Counter-Narrative

Owens’s commentary—and that of others who support Baldoni—presents a parallel, emotional narrative that challenges the legal reality of the case:

Legal Claim (Lively’s Side)
Psychological Theory (Owens’s Take)

Sexual Harassment & Hostile Workplace
Lawsuit is an emotional defense mechanism against unreciprocated feelings.

Professional Retaliation & Smear Campaign
Actions are fueled by personal resentment and the desire to control or punish.

Contractual Disputes & Creative Control
Attempts to hijack the film motivated by hurt pride and a feeling of being spurned.

This emotional framework provides Baldoni’s legal defense with a powerful angle: arguing that Lively’s actions were driven by personal grievance rather than legitimate business ethics or misconduct, which could potentially undermine her entire case in the court of public opinion, if not in the actual courtroom.

Candace Owens’s Involvement and Legal Blowback

Candace Owens’s strong, anti-Lively stance has made her a central figure in the media coverage, though her motives are questioned by critics who see it as a play for greater engagement across political and celebrity news spheres.

Subpoenaed by Lively: In a significant development, Blake Lively’s legal team has reportedly subpoenaed Candace Owens, along with other content creators, as part of her efforts to prove an alleged coordinated smear campaign orchestrated by Baldoni and his team to discredit her.
Owens’s Defense: Owens has denied being part of any coordinated campaign, claiming her negative coverage of Lively is based purely on her personal opinion and a belief that the actress is “lying.”

As legal filings continue to focus on contractual breaches, creative oversight, and alleged defamation, the public spectacle remains fixated on the unverified, deeply personal drama suggested by Owens. Lively’s calculated silence, in turn, is amplifying speculation, transforming the legal dispute into a high-stakes test of her long-cultivated “unbothered” public persona.