Blake Lively Targets DOZENS Of Youtubers & Content Creators While Her Lawyer Caught LYING About It!

Blake Lively vs. Justin Baldoni: The Wild Subpoena Scandal Shaking the Internet

By: Dave Neal, Standup Comic and Host of Rush Hour Podcast

Hey folks, Dave Neal here with a bonus weekend update brought to you by Cookie Jam. (Yes, I still love cookies, and no, they didn’t subpoena me—yet.) But let’s get into the storm swirling around the Blake Lively vs. Justin Baldoni case, now officially the most internet-entangled legal mess of our time.

Set to go to trial in March 2026, the case has entered the discovery phase—but what’s happening isn’t your typical pre-trial document exchange. Blake Lively’s legal team has reportedly issued over 60 subpoenas, not to Baldoni’s circle or studio insiders—but to content creators, YouTubers, TikTokers, Redditors, and journalists. That’s right. Blake’s trying to pierce the veil of the commentary class—and it’s got free speech advocates and creators screaming bloody murder.

The Subpoenas: Real or Stunt?

Initially, Lively’s legal team denied issuing subpoenas to creators. But the truth quickly surfaced: the subpoenas weren’t sent directly to YouTubers, but to Google, which owns YouTube. They’re demanding metadata—IP addresses, account info, possible payment trails—anything that might connect these creators to Baldoni’s legal team.

Why? Lively’s lawyers allege there’s a coordinated smear campaign against her, possibly financed or fed by Justin Baldoni’s legal squad. Creators like Without a Crystal Ball, Andy from Popcorn Planet, Shery from Shersty, and even Perez Hilton found themselves suddenly on the legal radar.

But here’s the kicker: almost every single one of these creators denies any backchannel coordination. They say they’re reporting independently based on public records, filings, leaks, and good ol’ commentary. No payments. No puppet strings.

Creators Clap Back: “Fishing Expedition”

Creators immediately recognized the subpoenas as what legal experts call a “fishing expedition”—broad, invasive, and lacking legal justification.

Shery put it bluntly:

“This is not just invasive. It’s dangerous. It threatens my privacy, my sources, and my First Amendment rights.”

Andy from Popcorn Planet had his attorney call Blake’s law firm twice, and twice they were told the subpoena wasn’t real—until YouTube itself confirmed it was. That’s either gross incompetence or deliberate deception, and it paints Blake’s team as playing hardball in a PR-legal war that’s spiraling out of control.

Katie from Without a Crystal Ball, one of the most diligent and fearless journalists in this sphere, summed it up with cutting clarity:

“Blake falsely accuses me of smearing her… while subpoenaing me for my bank records and account information. All slander. All false. I’m fighting back.”

Inside the Tactics: PR or Legal Warfare?

The subpoenas seem less about legal merit and more about intimidation. Several creators have noted that this isn’t just about them—it’s about sending a message. The message? Speak critically about Blake Lively, and you might find yourself in court.

Let’s break this down:

The subpoenas demand user information from Google, including login IPs and metadata.

They do not outline any direct connection between these creators and Baldoni.

Legal experts warn this could be an abuse of discovery and a violation of journalistic privilege.

And as Shery eloquently pointed out, this is not Watergate, and she’s not Snowden. This is a celebrity trying to silence negative coverage and regain control of a narrative that’s no longer in her hands.

The Protective Order Twist

Things got even more surreal when Lively filed a motion for a protective order over her upcoming deposition, scheduled for July 17. Her team argues she fears harassment, stalking, and paparazzi exposure. She even demands a list of all individuals attending the deposition—including media or opposing counsel’s staff.

But critics see a different motive. Is Blake trying to dodge the deposition? Some theorize she may be creating conditions to claim emotional distress and withdraw from the case entirely.

One commentator speculated:

“She subpoenaed content creators knowing it would stir backlash—then will point to that backlash to claim she feels unsafe. It’s her exit strategy.”

Meanwhile, Justin Baldoni’s lawyer Brian Freriedman joked the deposition should be held at Madison Square Garden—a tongue-in-cheek dig suggesting maximum transparency. That quote was immediately twisted by Lively’s team as evidence of harassment.

A Legal and Ethical Minefield

What’s at stake here isn’t just Hollywood gossip—it’s the future of independent journalism, digital free speech, and the public’s right to criticize the powerful.

Small creators are now being forced to lawyer up to protect their privacy, anonymity, and source integrity. Some are part-time creators, some full-time, but all are now defending themselves against a legal onslaught few could’ve anticipated.

Even legal commentators like Not Actually Golden weighed in, saying:

“I’m usually flexible in how laws are applied, but I’m nearly an absolutist about free speech. If we lose that, we lose everything.”

And she’s right. The chilling effect is real. The precedent is dangerous. If celebrities can subpoena creators en masse to find critics, what stops any billionaire, politician, or influencer from doing the same?

Blake Lively’s Strategy: Misstep or Meltdown?

The irony is glaring: in trying to “prove” a smear campaign, Lively may have just created one against herself. Her brand—once beloved for fashion, family values, and chic sarcasm—is now being overshadowed by accusations of legal bullying, gaslighting, and media manipulation.

The subpoenas were a mistake. The protective order, arguably a PR tactic. And her continued effort to paint herself as a victim, while dragging innocent creators through legal hell, is turning public sympathy into public scorn.

As Shery noted, this isn’t about whether people believe Blake Lively—it’s about her inability to accept that many don’t.

In the end, this case will be fought in courtrooms and inboxes, in podcast monologues and subpoena PDFs. The digital town square is watching closely, and the creators aren’t backing down.

Until next time, I’m Dave Neal. Catch me on The Rush Hour Podcast and don’t forget—if the world gets too crazy, Cookie Jam is just a tap away. Stay sane out there.

Sponsored by Cookie Jam – Download the match-three game with over 100 million players. Because Hollywood might be burning, but your cookies don’t have to. 🍪