A motion that raised eyebrows

Blake Lively’s ongoing legal war against director Justin Baldoni and the Wayfair parties has taken yet another dramatic turn—but this time, the move may have backfired on her own case. In a newly filed motion, Lively sought punitive and treble damages worth millions, claiming retaliation and misconduct. However, her strategy—anchored by the use of an anonymous declaration and inflammatory accusations—has been widely criticized as more of a publicity stunt than a solid legal maneuver.

Six motions and counting
This isn’t the first time Lively’s team has pushed for heavy sanctions and financial damages. Between her attorneys, Leslie Sloan, and even her husband Ryan Reynolds, six motions have now been filed attempting to extract millions from Baldoni and Wayfair. Observers argue that the pattern suggests desperation rather than strength, with each filing designed to generate media headlines rather than withstand courtroom scrutiny.

The anonymous witness problem
The most controversial element of Lively’s latest motion was the introduction of an unnamed person’s declaration, redacted almost entirely, alleging negative interactions and verbal abuse by Baldoni. With no project named, no specifics provided, and no ability to cross-examine the accuser, the filing struck many as an attempt to smear Baldoni’s reputation rather than strengthen the core case. Critics note that federal courts typically exclude “propensity evidence”—claims of past bad acts that are unrelated to the current lawsuit—because it prejudices juries without proving wrongdoing in the matter at hand.

A recycled threat and questionable evidence
At the heart of Lively’s argument lies a claim that Wayfair co-founder Steve Sarowitz allegedly said he was willing to spend $100 million to “ruin the lives” of Lively and her family. The quote, supposedly made at the premiere of a film, has been presented multiple times throughout the case—but judges have already deemed it insufficient evidence of conspiracy or retaliation. Now, Lively is recycling the claim, reframing it as proof that subsequent lawsuits against her were acts of retaliation rather than legitimate legal defenses.

TMZ and the PR narrative

Perhaps the clearest sign that this filing was about image rather than legal standing came shortly after it was submitted: TMZ ran an exclusive story highlighting the anonymous witness’s claims. To critics, it was a transparent attempt to shape public perception and cast Baldoni as abusive. Yet, because the declaration lacks substance and likely won’t meet evidentiary standards, the maneuver risks undermining Lively’s credibility. As one analyst put it, “If you really have a strong case, you don’t need to leak anonymous accusations to the press.”

Why the motion may fail in court
Legal experts point out several problems with Lively’s latest filing:

Hearsay issues: Much of her evidence is based on secondhand or even “triple hearsay,” which courts rarely allow.
Irrelevant allegations: The anonymous witness’s claims about unrelated projects don’t directly connect to her sexual harassment or retaliation claims.
Protected legal rights: Wayfair’s decision to countersue Lively is being framed as “retaliation,” but courts view lawsuits as a legitimate defense, not unlawful retaliation.
Propensity evidence: Federal rules generally prohibit introducing unrelated “bad acts” as proof of current misconduct, making the anonymous declaration nearly useless in trial.

The backlash effect
While Lively’s team may have intended the filing to paint Baldoni and Wayfair as villains, the tactic seems to be backfiring. Public commentary has shifted, with critics accusing Lively of weaponizing the media and undermining her own credibility. Observers note that Wayfair and Baldoni have stayed largely silent, allowing Lively’s increasingly aggressive filings and press leaks to damage her image.

A weakening case?
From the beginning, Lively’s claims have evolved—from accusations of a coordinated smear campaign, to blaming online creators, to now calling the lawsuit itself an act of retaliation. Each shift raises questions about whether her legal arguments are rooted in fact or in strategy. The reliance on anonymous and redacted testimony has further fueled skepticism that her case lacks concrete evidence.

Hollywood’s reaction

In an industry hypersensitive to reputation, the unfolding spectacle has left many insiders uneasy. While Baldoni’s name has taken hits from the press, his camp appears confident and steady. In contrast, Lively’s aggressive filings and media leaks risk alienating both supporters and industry allies. Some insiders quietly suggest that she has “overplayed her hand,” turning what could have been a private legal battle into a public relations war she can’t win.

The bigger picture
At its core, this case is no longer just about Lively and Baldoni. It has become a broader story about how Hollywood stars manage scandals, the fine line between justice and image control, and the risks of turning legal disputes into media campaigns. While headlines continue to swirl, the courtroom remains the final arbiter—and there, evidence matters far more than PR.

What happens next
The court is expected to address the admissibility of Lively’s anonymous witness declaration and the recycled Sarowitz threat in upcoming hearings. If struck down, her motion could be viewed as a serious miscalculation—one that exposes the weakness of her claims rather than strengthening them. For now, the biggest takeaway is clear: the harder Lively pushes in public, the more she risks sabotaging her own case.