Blake Lively, the iconic Hollywood actress known for her glamorous roles and headlines, may soon find herself facing the harsh glare of reality as her defamation lawsuit unravels before the public eye. A recent deposition, filled with unexpected twists, reveals cracks in Lively’s story and hints that her smear campaign narrative might be crumbling. Is her legal strategy collapsing, or is it a strategic shift aimed at saving face?

The Truth Behind the Smear Campaign

For months, Blake Lively has publicly stated that her reputation was being destroyed by a so-called “smear campaign” launched against her by Wayfair and its parties. She claimed that she had been targeted for months, facing baseless allegations that ruined her career. However, recent developments suggest that Lively may have been telling a different story altogether, one that is quickly unraveling as legal battles intensify.

During her deposition, Lively allegedly admitted to a shocking truth: the smear campaign she so often spoke about, one that painted her as a victim of a digital army, might not even exist. Sources close to the case suggest that Lively admitted that the only smear campaign she can personally confirm involves a series of counterclaims made by Wayfair’s representatives. While this admission was redacted in official documents, the implication is clear: Lively is being forced to abandon her initial claims of a coordinated digital attack and now refocuses her legal efforts on defamation allegations.

A Deflection or a Strategic Shift?

This dramatic shift has legal experts questioning Lively’s true motives. Has she been trying to deflect the mounting pressure? Was her earlier narrative of a smear campaign just a smokescreen to win public sympathy? By pivoting to defamation allegations, Lively may be trying to salvage her case after realizing that the smear campaign angle lacked evidence.

However, experts argue that this may backfire. “If Lively can’t prove the smear campaign, then she risks looking like someone desperate to control the narrative,” says one legal expert. “It seems like a deflection, a power move, designed to keep the pressure on the opposition rather than a genuine claim of retaliation.”

Lively’s legal team, led by her attorney Brian Freriedman, has been criticized for what some experts deem “underhanded tactics.” Freriedman is reportedly pursuing subpoenas for documents, communications, and financial records, trying to create a paper trail that will implicate the Wayfair parties in a smear campaign. However, the defense argues that the subpoenas are nothing more than harassment—a tactic to intimidate and silence those defending themselves.

The Real Motivation Behind the Subpoenas

What makes this case even more curious is the approach Lively’s legal team is taking. They have filed a motion to subpoena Wayfair’s attorney, Brian Freriedman, demanding records that could expose any communication that paints Lively in a negative light. This is where things get murky: Freriedman, a seasoned lawyer, is being targeted as the focal point of Lively’s claim. Critics argue that this is a classic example of dragging an opposing counsel into the fray, a practice that is rarely seen in high-profile legal disputes.

The accusations against Freriedman suggest that he has been orchestrating a campaign to defame Lively in the media. However, experts argue that what Lively’s legal team is calling a “smear campaign” is simply Freriedman doing his job—defending his clients against unfounded claims. After all, it was Lively who brought the allegations to the forefront, making it impossible for Wayfair to remain silent.

Retaliation or Legal Defense?

As the case continues to evolve, one crucial question emerges: does defending oneself in the media constitute retaliation? According to Lively’s legal arguments, any statement made by Wayfair or its representatives in the media is retaliation for her lawsuit, and thus, a form of defamation. But critics argue that defending oneself against an accusation in the court of public opinion is not only legal—it’s expected.

The New York court recently dismissed claims similar to Lively’s, citing the absolute privilege granted to statements made during litigation or in defense of claims. This means that statements made by Wayfair in response to Lively’s lawsuit cannot be considered retaliatory in nature. The law affords the same rights to the defense as it does to the plaintiff, and this legal precedent is working against Lively’s case.

Lively’s Legal Tactics: A Strategic Mistake?

In what appears to be a desperate move, Lively is now shifting her focus to a defamation claim that might not hold water. According to her defense team, this pivot to a defamation strategy is a direct response to the Wayfair parties defending themselves. However, the defense counters that the case could be dismissed on the grounds of litigation privilege. Lively’s claim of defamation could easily be struck down, leaving her with little to show for her aggressive legal tactics.

As the case drags on, it is becoming increasingly clear that Lively is facing mounting pressure. Her efforts to silence her critics through subpoenas and legal threats are only pushing her into a corner. “It’s a classic case of trying to control the narrative,” one commentator explains. “But as her own case weakens, she’s finding it harder to maintain that control.”

What’s Next for Blake Lively?

As her defamation lawsuit spirals into chaos, Lively’s image as a victim may soon come crashing down. If the judge rules in favor of Wayfair’s defense, it could signal the end of her legal battle and the collapse of her smear campaign narrative. For now, it remains to be seen whether Lively will continue her legal fight or admit that she’s running out of strategies.

Blake Lively’s journey from being Hollywood’s darling to embroiled in a legal circus is a reminder that sometimes, the pursuit of justice can unravel in ways that no one expects. Whether she can recover from this or if her career will suffer long-term damage remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: this is just the beginning of a legal saga that could define her career in ways she never anticipated.