According to James Vituscka’s newly amended complaint as reviewed by Kassidy “20 years to life” O’Connell on YouTube!

Apologies in advance if this flair is incorrect, or I am guilty of transgressing sub rules. u/Mods - please advise.

I have used AI to find out how to let Apple TV know that I am cancelling my subscription only because they are promoting Ryan Reynolds in Mayday and wanted to share that advice on the process, if any of you are interested.

"To let Apple TV know your specific reason for cancelling, you must submit formal feedback or contact support, as the standard cancellation interface does not provide a text box for custom reasons. Many users protesting Apple TV's heavy promotion of Ryan Reynolds (such as for his film Mayday) use alternate communication channels to voice their complaints. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Step 1: Submit Customer Feedback (Most Effective)

Apple maintains a specific feedback portal where product teams read user submissions.

1. Navigate directly to the official Apple TV App Feedback Page.
2. Fill out your name and email address.
3. Set the Feedback Type to Feature Request or Feedback.
4. In the Comments section, explicitly state that you are cancelling your subscription because you object to the continuous promotion and front-facing presence of Ryan Reynolds. [1]

Step 2: Leave a Reason via "Report a Problem"

If you want to try linking your feedback directly to your billing history, you can use the official purchase reporting system: [1]

1. Go to Apple's Report a Problem portal and sign in with your Apple ID.
2. Click the "I'd like to..." dropdown menu and choose "Request a refund" or report a problem.
3. Choose "Subscription" and select Apple TV+.
4. Select a reason from the dropdown, and when the text box appears, type your specific grievance regarding their promotional focus on Ryan Reynolds. [1]

Step 3: Cancel Your Subscription

To make sure your feedback carries weight, officially terminate your billing cycle using one of these standard methods:

• On iPhone or iPad: Open the Settings app → Tap Your Name → Tap Subscriptions → Select Apple TV+ → Tap Cancel Subscription. [1]
• On a Web Browser: Visit tv.apple.com → Click your Account Icon in the top right → Select Settings → Scroll down to Subscriptions and click Manage → Select Cancel Subscription. [1]
• On Apple TV 4K: Go to Settings → Profiles and Accounts → Select your account → Go to Subscriptions → Choose Apple TV+ and follow the prompts to cancel. [1]

If you would like, I can help you draft a formal complaint message to copy and paste into Apple's feedback form, or provide details on how to contact their corporate executive relations team directly.

• Reddit·r/teamjustinbaldoni Apple TV MayDay post: the comment section is not looking ... 4 Aug 2026 — dropping my email below with the press contacts : * Animatopoeia. • 27d ago. This is fantastic. Thank you so much for setting an e...
• Toronto Sun Ryan Reynolds and Kenneth Branagh buddy up for Apple's ... 1 Sept 2026 — “I thought (what) was really beautiful, was that Nikolai holds in high esteem both the light of America and the dark,” said Reynol...
• Apple Support Request a refund for apps or content that you bought from Apple 15 May 2026 — How to request a refund. Sign in to reportaproblem.apple.com. Tap or click "I'd like to," then choose "Request a refund." iPhone s...

If you would like, I can help you draft a formal complaint message to copy and paste into Apple's feedback form, or provide details on how to contact their corporate executive relations team directly.

Candace and her husband, George, ran into Justin and Emily Baldoni at the airport in Iceland on Friday, August 28th while waiting to board their return flight home to the U.S.

She discusses it on today's episode of her show, starting at the 12:38 mark. She also shared some photos she took of their run-in.

https://www.youtube.com/live/JrhGEm8MGRY?is=T8hq1nvLBNQ246sj

So glad these two got to meet! ❤️ Remember, Ryan and Blake tried to subpoena Candace during the IEWU legal dispute, and falsely accused her of working with Justin's team behind the scenes to help "smear" Blake's name.

A moment for the man, the myth, the legend - Mr. Charles Babcock! Idk about you guys, but I feel like I need a t-shirt w/this man on it.

“A Star report says Ryan Reynolds is facing professional repercussions tied to the difficult It Ends With Us production, a development with potential career implications. The outlet cites a source claiming Reynolds, 49, privately acknowledged industry confidence in him has diminished after Blake Lively said he re‑wrote the film's rooftop scene. Star previously reported fan criticism of a 'manipulative' email to author Colleen Hoover sent after the 2024 It Ends With Us premiere, and the dispute with director Justin Baldoni. According to the source, some filmmakers are cautious about granting Reynolds lo and his company broad creative control. The source also says he is writing the next Deadpool installment and developing a sailing reality show with Hugh Jackman.”

My opinion is that I didn’t expect him to be fully canceled (at least not like his wife seems to be) but I did think his reputation suffered from what came out and he did take some hits.

Also from a separate article about Formula 1 - “Alpine external investors, including Hollywood star Ryan Reynolds, have brought “no added value” to the team, according to parent company Renault, as the French auto brand puts talks of a sale on ice.”

Ryan has built his brand around bringing value by attaching his name to a product. What happens when that value is tarnished? We’ll see



I notice people in other subs and on social often make statements like "You're a pick me girl, Justin is never going to notice you! You can give it a rest!"

Ummm... what now? I didn't even know Justin before this mess. He's no one to me. I'm not a fan of his by any means. I can just tell right from wrong, so therefore I'm team Justin.

Are most of you here fans of his?

Blake Lively may not be getting the fat paycheck she'd hoped for from Justin Baldoni ... but she doesn't seem too torn up about it.
Blake and Ryan Reynolds were spotted for the first time since JB was ordered to fork over
$400K for Blake's legal fees in their lengthy legal battle - a major downgrade from the $8
mil she wanted.

But despite the significantly smaller payout, Blake and Ryan were out and about in Manhattan Friday night with family ... including Blake's sister, Robyn.
She also doesn't seem to be taking that dig from Justin's lawyer, Bryan Freedman, too hard either... smiling while she walked around with her fam.

The attorney previously told TMZ ... "The ruling is a significant victory for my clients and sends a clear message that, no matter how powerful you may be, the courtroom is not a place to take advantage of the law for your own personal gain."
Maybe all the messiness can finally end with this.

GUYS I AM DYING - "Lively’s blunderbuss approach swings from baselessly accusing Mr. Wallace of perjury in a different case based on unspecified “evidence” from yet another case, to pounding her fists that the Wallace Parties’ request to obtain evidence opposing Lively’s attempt to extract nearly $1 million in legal feesfrom them is somehow part of a “pressure campaign” against Lively."

Just bought it on Pacer, so all of you can now access it on Court Listener. :)

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69611825/68/wallace-v-lively/

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=ZfszcdRkP5gypTU66m/Y2w==

A lot of us here do not care for Candace. But if you you do, she is on her live and is speaking about her trip to Iceland where she ran into Justin, Emily and their kids, and she’s sharing their conversation and her thoughts about him.

https://www.youtube.com/live/JrhGEm8MGRY?is=FAU3c0X3h4My7Qen

Okay another crossover episode in the Lively/Baldoni extended universe.

Bryan Freedman is asking the judge to reconsider his anti-SLAPP loss in Alexa Nikolas’ lawsuit... his ammo? Stephanie Jones' cyber expert whose report analyzed the weird web of alleged smear sites.

Report here

Horton’s original report found technical overlap between websites involving Jones, Ghost, the Alexander Brothers, Jed Wallace and Alexa Nikolas, suggesting possible “common authorship or operational control.” But he wasn’t identifying the actual humans behind them.

This matters because I’ve been quietly watching Alexa’s suit against Freedman, where the judge relied partly on Horton’s report in letting her survive anti-SLAPP.

Now Freedman has Horton’s deposition, where Horton says Alexa wasn’t even part of the core commonality analysis and he never determined who was actually behind the sites. He also apparently didn’t know Jones had tried to use his report to add Melissa Nathan to the defamation claim. 💀

Horton isn’t retracting anything. He’s basically saying: I found technical overlap. I didn’t identify the humans.

And Freedman is now using that distinction to attack Alexa’s “connect the dots” theory. Another lawsuit, another portal into the Lively/Baldoni cinematic universe.

Substack Link

Honestly, I'm surprised and dismayed that this isn't being talked about here on the sub.

Summary: The article argues that six Reddit accounts were likely being operated together to deliberately shape online conversations about the Blake Lively–Justin Baldoni dispute. The researchers found unusually strong signs of coordination: the accounts repeatedly posted nearly identical material, interacted heavily with one another, followed similar daily activity patterns, sometimes presented contradictory personal histories, and appeared to adopt particular identities to make their arguments seem more authentic. The authors call this astroturfing—creating the appearance of ordinary grassroots opinion when the activity may actually be coordinated. They stress, however, that they do not know who operated the accounts or who, if anyone, paid them.

The strongest evidence that this may have been professional rather than simply obsessive fandom is that the same six accounts behaved similarly in discussions about the rock band The Fray. They arrived around the band's relaunch, generated large amounts of discussion, argued with one another from different viewpoints, recycled material, and helped shift conversation toward the band's new lineup. In the Lively–Baldoni discussions, the accounts repeatedly promoted themes favorable to Baldoni, attacked or discredited Lively supporters, and occasionally appeared to anticipate information that had not yet become public. The article connects this generally—but not conclusively to these particular accounts—with court evidence showing that Baldoni's PR operation had hired digital specialists whose services included influencing Reddit conversations and manipulating online narratives.

The article's larger point is that this goes far beyond one celebrity lawsuit. Reddit discussions increasingly appear in Google searches and are also used as information sources for AI systems, meaning a relatively small coordinated operation can potentially influence what millions of people eventually encounter as seemingly organic public opinion. AI makes the problem worse because fake accounts and convincing content can now be produced much more cheaply and at greater scale. The authors therefore argue that we should be much more skeptical about whether apparent online consensus is actually spontaneous, and that Reddit, technology companies, regulators, journalists and researchers need better ways of identifying coordinated manipulation before it becomes embedded in search engines and AI-generated answers.

Edited to say, as always, I welcome the downvotes... shrug

This space is designed to discuss all things relevant to the cases (even minor!) and those involved. Please feel free to share all types of questions, or share thoughtful opinions and theories.

The cases are complex and it can be difficult to both keep up with, and remember all the facts and details. New members or those seeking clarification are welcome to post here too.

If you have concerns about sub rules and/or sub moderation, please reach out via modmail.

This thread is designed to promote healthy and productive discussions and avoid low-effort or off-topic posts. Please keep things civil and respectful for the health of the community at large. 💛

Remember when Mike Gottlieb went on the Town Podcast after the case settled, to parade 47.1 as the next big thing to win millions in damages and treble damages for Blake Lively?

How did Liman describe it again…BLUNDERBUSS

Let’s revisit the highlights shall we 🤣🤣🤣

So we already know this litigation saga has been a giant financial loss for Lively. But with how inflated her costs were, I got curious.

Even friendly publications framed Liman’s roughly $407K award as a loss, so it’s hard to argue that she gained much positive PR from it either. Instead, we got another month of headlines connecting her to this case, which is inherently disastrous for her.

So my question was: was pursuing 47.1 worth anything at all?

Apparently not.

I submitted Exhibit B, which contains the billing records from Lively’s fee request, to ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini. I asked them to calculate the amount billed for entries explicitly connected to 47.1.

For my final calculation, I included a row only if its description contained one of these exact phrases: “47.1,” “statutory damages,” “damages expert,” or “punitive damages research.”

I excluded general discovery, travel, hearing preparation, and other work unless the description itself contained one of those phrases.

Here is what I got:

Willkie: $191,054.18
Manatt: $234,943.47
GBX, the expert consulting firm: $96,242.50

Total Spent: $522,240.15

The judge awarded her $363,245.40 in attorney’s fees and $44,206.35 in costs, for a total of $407,451.75.

$522,240.15 − $407,451.75 = $114,788.40

So even if we apply her entire award against what she was billed for the 47.1-related entries, she still comes out $114,788.40 short.

Gemini originally gave me a higher total of $571,385.85, so I checked why.

The biggest difference was GBX. Gemini used the records’ “47.1 Related” subtotal of $173,276.50. But several individual entries inside those records do not contain any of my keywords. Applying the rule to each individual description gives $96,242.50, not $173,276.50. It's possible these should apply in the end, but I'll throw her a bone. She needs one.

Gemini also counted $159.52 in taxi expenses that did not match any of my keywords. It missed $34,206.02 in qualifying Manatt entries and overcounted Willkie’s qualifying entries by $6,158.20.

Starting with Gemini’s total, I subtracted the amounts it overcounted and added the amount it missed:

Gemini’s total: $571,385.85
Subtract GBX overcount: −$77,034.00
Subtract Willkie overcount: −$6,158.20
Subtract taxi overcount: −$159.52
Add missing Manatt entries: +$34,206.02

Corrected total: $522,240.15

In other words, Gemini’s total was $49,145.70 too high. Claude matched the earlier $525,237.15 calculation, but that earlier methodology included one ambiguous $2,997 Willkie entry reading “Attention to motion for fees/sanctions.” I removed it because the description did not specifically connect the work to 47.1.

Basically, the billing records identify at least $522K in entries explicitly tied to 47.1, while the judge awarded about $407K in total. Even after crediting the entire award against those entries, asking for 47.1 still left her roughly $115K underwater.

I think a net loss on 47.1 in the Jed Wallace case is probably coming too, even if she eventually receives some fees there. That part is obviously just my prediction because there is no final award or complete comparable billing record yet.

TL;DR: Blake would have been at least 115K richer if she never tried for 47.1 in the first place.

Billing records:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1448.2_1.pdf

Court’s fee decision:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2024cv10049/634304/1452/

Edit: Clarified Gemini's calculation difference

EDIT: Found it! Will explain in comment.

I seem to recall a text exchange between I think Melissa Nathan and Jen Abel where one of them said something to the effect of “the one time we didn’t actually do anything and we get sued?!” in December 2024 or January 2025. But I have no idea how to find it. Does anyone know what I’m talking about?

So remember when Colleen claimed she was donating millions to charities? That’s not exactly true. She was literally paying more in salaries and compensation than she was giving away. Such shady woman !!

So from 2017 through 2024, Bookworm Box gave roughly $1.67 million in grants to outside charities, based on the Form 990 filings. For comparison, total compensation over the same period was about $1,143,833

source; Foundation: Bookworm Box Llc ( I use the site "propublica.org" )

edit; Even though all of this is legal, something just rubs me the wrong way about how she handles her charity.

I keep seeing a lot of people claiming that if Verity turns out to be a success, it will help Colleen Hoover, and honestly, it could. BUT I don’t believe it will help, and here’s why

1. Her reputation is toxic, and she is forever tainted by the things she did to Justin Baldoni, as well as her behavior during the It Ends with Us drama. Every article that brings up Colleen always mentions It Ends with Us. For any company, that kind of stain is a disaster, and that is why she has not been able to get any more movie deals for her other books. There is a reason why she has disappeared from the public eye.
2. Even if the movie is a success, Amazon owns the rights and will get the big money. Colleen ultimately won’t really benefit from the movie being successful. Yes, she may sell more books, but as we know, the big money is in movies. When the company making a movie based on your book barely even wants to be associated with you, that tells you everything you need to know.
3. Colleen’s biggest mistake was selling away the rights to her most lucrative books, so she no longer owns any valuable IP of her own. There’s a reason why her production company isn’t working on her books but is now buying other IP instead.
4. Colleen had three books made into movies, and only It Ends with Us was really successful. Her other two books didn’t lose money, but they didn’t really make much money either and those were her best-selling books.
5. Colleen’s pivot to producing just confirms what I’ve said about her being really dumb. First of all, production is extremely risky. Colleen doesn’t have the money, the gift, or the business sense to succeed in that industry. She is now mostly “producing,” and those deals aren’t that lucrative. She gets a check and maybe a small bonus, but it also involves a lot of work for very little money.
6. Colleen stopping writing books is her absolute biggest mistake ever. She is living in la-la land if she thinks she will be the next Steven Spielberg. If Colleen were smart, she would have written more sequels or continued some of her best-selling stories. Those books still have huge fan bases who would happily buy more. But as I’ve said by now, she’s really dumb.
7. As Heidi Klum said, “One day you’re in, and the next day you’re out.” I think Colleen thought she would be untouchable in the book world, but as we can see in 2026, her work and reputation have been heavily diminished.

The reason I keep saying that she is done in Hollywood is because, notice how Amazon is barely using her to promote the movie. That tells me all I need to know. And Colleen is way too attention-seeking for that to be entirely her own choice.

Justin Baldoni’s Wayfarer Studios Ordered to Pay The New York Times $171K in Damages After Defamation Suit

The title of the utterly ridiculous attempt to brand "attorneys' fees" as "damages". https://people.com/justin-baldoni-s-wayfarer-studios-ordered-to-pay-the-new-york-times-usd171k-in-damages-after-defamation-suit-12027544

Justin Baldoni’s production company has been ordered to pay The New York Times more than $171,000 in damages following its unsuccessful defamation lawsuit against the newspaper over its reporting on Blake Lively’s allegations related to It Ends With Us.

In a decision issued Monday, July 27, New York Supreme Court Justice Gerald Lebovits awarded The New York Times $171,616.20 after granting summary judgment in the newspaper’s favor under New York’s anti-SLAPP law.

Clearly, the author can't bother to google (actually, this article came up during my attempts to Google) what anti-SLAPP law is and thinks these are "damages". Seems like a Blakestan.

In a statement following the ruling, The New York Times said, “We’re delighted by the court’s decision. The anti-SLAPP statute is designed to combat exactly these kinds of meritless suits brought to silence the press.”

Meritless? It was dismissed at the MTD stage. NYT is equivalent to a gossip rag and, as always, does not disappoint.

In Monday’s ruling, Lebovits found that Wayfarer’s lawsuit arose from reporting on a matter of public interest and that its claims lacked “a substantial basis in fact and law.”

What egregious liars!!! NYT, in its own filings, alleged that Wayfarer's claims lacked a basis in fact and law. The judge ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion offered no commentary on this (well, obviously, since it was not within their purview). NYT's claims were never proven, because it was dismissed on MTD grounds.

Wow. Just wow.

This was briefly discussed here. But I could not resist. Well, no wonder if you google Megan Twohey's role in this mess, the search paints her as a saint "simply reporting on the case" based on "public records". Those public records? People Magazine, Wikipedia, and the NYT itself.

This case is now over, but my takeaway is that while Justin did come out better than a normal average person would, a normal, average person stands zero chance against such disgusting liars.

I am not surprised that many of the NYT's reporters are hacks, which I have been discovering for a long time. It's the doubling down and protecting predators (debtpool and his wife, allegedly) that concerns me the most.

I feel like he's trying to convince us that he and Blake are still rich. All this showing off is bizarre.

He and Blake are two peas in a pod.

This space is designed to discuss all things relevant to the cases (even minor!) and those involved. Please feel free to share all types of questions, or share thoughtful opinions and theories.

The cases are complex and it can be difficult to both keep up with, and remember all the facts and details. New members or those seeking clarification are welcome to post here too.

If you have concerns about sub rules and/or sub moderation, please reach out via modmail.

This thread is designed to promote healthy and productive discussions and avoid low-effort or off-topic posts. Please keep things civil and respectful for the health of the community at large. 💛

Judge Liman's decision on 47.1 damages for Blake Lively is the first published opinion on the new law. Wayfarer was ordered to pay almost half a million dollars to Lively for one single solitary reason: the defamation claim.

California 47.1 provides fee shifting for prevailing defendants on an SH/SA defamation claim. Wayfarer was specifically freed from any legal fees/costs based on their other causes of action.

In other words, WP filed a law suit with nine causes of action. (NINE). Blake Lively had to defend against seven of them. Her husband Ryan Reynolds? Six.

Judge Liman specifically set out that any money spent defending Ryan Reynolds was not eligible. Monies spent defending the other six claims were also not eligible.

NOTHING would have been eligible for fee shifting if WP had only filed eight causes of action. One of those causes that did NOT qualify for fee shifting was 'false light.' It carries punitive and exemplary damages just like defamation, but doesn't meet the letter of the 47.1 statute.....

If you are the waiter/waitress whose Table Six said you should come in and read for a part....and then you get SA/SH'ed......and the perpetrator comes after you by suing for 'false light invasion of privacy' instead of straight-up defamation, do you have Blake Lively to blame?