BREAKING: Wayfarer STRIKES BACK Against Blake Lively’s “SHAM LAWSUIT”! Explosive Motion EXPOSES Web of Deception, Ties to Stephanie Jones’ ALLEGED CRIMES—Sources Say Hollywood Could Be ROCKED By Criminal Referrals and a Secret Plot to Sabotage the Studio!

The “Vanzan Sham”: Did Blake Lively Use a Shell Company to Secretly Seize Private Texts in a Legal Ambush?

By Lauren Knight | The Court of Random Opinion

Hey everybody, welcome back. I’m Lauren Knight, and last night while live on stream with The Tilted Lawyer, a major legal bombshell dropped. Wayfair’s legal team filed a motion to compel documents from Vanzan Incorporated—a move that could rip the mask off what many are now calling a full-blown legal deception campaign involving Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds, and a shell company allegedly used to harvest private communications in secret.

So, what’s going on? Let’s break it all down.

Who—or What—is Vanzan Inc.?

If you’ve been following this case, then you already know Vanzan Inc. is what the online sleuths and legal watchers (myself included) now lovingly refer to as “VanSham.” It’s reportedly a shell company created and controlled by Blake Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, allegedly for the sole purpose of gaining access to text messages between director Justin Baldoni and other Wayfair parties.

On the surface, it appeared that Vanzan filed a lawsuit—Vanzan Inc. v. John Does 1 through 10—for breach of contract. But here’s the catch: Vanzan had no actual business with any of the defendants. The contract? Undefined. The defendants? Anonymous placeholders. The connection to the actual Wayfair parties? Nonexistent.

Still, Vanzan used this suit as legal justification to serve a subpoena—on one person: Stephanie Jones.

Stephanie Jones: The Key to the Data Vault

Stephanie Jones, who once worked closely with Jennifer Abel (a former Wayfair executive), was in possession of Abel’s old work phone. Sources say she tipped off Blake Lively’s team that incriminating text messages might be on that device. And just like that, a mysterious shell company with zero ties to Abel filed a lawsuit against unnamed “John Does,” served a subpoena to Jones, and voila—Jones quietly turned over the contents of the phone.

No one told Abel. No one told Wayfair. No one objected. And somehow, that data—including private, possibly privileged, communications—made its way directly to Blake Lively.

It’s a move that legal experts now argue violates basic principles of notice and due process, and may potentially infringe upon federal wiretapping laws.

The Motion to Compel: Turning Up the Heat

Fast forward to last night, when Jennifer Abel and her legal team filed a motion to compel Vanzan Inc. to hand over key documents that could expose the alleged scheme.

This motion wasn’t even filed in the main Lively v. Wayfair case—it came through in Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel, the side lawsuit stemming from Jones’ possession and use of the phone.

Here’s what Abel is demanding:

A copy of the subpoena Vanzan served on Stephanie Jones.

The documents Jones produced in response.

All communications between Vanzan and Jones (or their legal teams) about the lawsuit.

Vanzan’s organizational structure documents.

Records identifying who actually owns Vanzan.

This list is laser-focused and devastatingly strategic. If granted, these disclosures could confirm what many already suspect: that Vanzan was nothing more than a front, used to bypass legal hurdles and quietly obtain damaging intel.

Why This Matters: The “Sham Lawsuit” Argument

The motion to compel includes damning language. Abel’s lawyers state outright:

“There is no conceivable link between Abel and Vanzan… Vanzan had no discernible need for the information Jones obtained from Abel’s phone.”

They also argue that the entire lawsuit was dismissed immediately after the subpoena was fulfilled, and that no judge was ever assigned to the case. These are strong indicators of a lawsuit filed not for justice—but for access.

And it worked. Blake Lively’s team allegedly used those messages in their own lawsuit filings—bolstering their case with data obtained through what Abel’s side is calling “a sham mechanism.”

What Lively’s Team Says

Blake Lively’s legal team has not denied their involvement in the Vanzan matter. In fact, they’ve publicly defended the maneuver, calling it “a common, lawful, and appropriate” method of investigation.

They even admitted that it gave them access to Abel’s messages.

That defense hinges on the idea that this was just a tool, used properly and within the bounds of discovery law. But critics point out that using a shell company with no real connection to the opposing party, filing a placeholder lawsuit with no intention of following through, and secretly gathering private data is not “common”—and it’s definitely not ethical.

What’s Next?

The motion to compel exposes Vanzan’s resistance. Even after Abel’s team reduced their request from 11 categories down to just 5, Vanzan refused to hand over anything.

That begs the question: What are they hiding?

If Vanzan were a legitimate company with a real breach of contract claim, why not turn over the requested documents? Why resist so strongly—especially when their legal activity is now central to a major case?

Abel’s team suspects that the real reason is simple: Vanzan isn’t real. And if the documents show that it’s just a front for Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds, the implications could explode beyond this case—opening the door to sanctions, potential ethical violations, and even criminal referrals.

The Bigger Picture: Celebrity Privilege Meets Legal Weaponization

This case is about more than subpoenas and shell companies. It’s about how the powerful can bend legal systems to their will, often without scrutiny—until someone fights back.

If Lively and her team really orchestrated a fake lawsuit to seize private communications, that’s not just clever litigation—it’s legal sabotage. And if Stephanie Jones cooperated without proper notice, that too could result in professional and legal consequences.

Final Thoughts

Wayfair’s move to compel documents from Vanzan Inc. is not just procedural—it’s surgical. It cuts right into the heart of the alleged deception at play, and if successful, could blow the lid off one of the boldest discovery end-runs we’ve seen in years.

Whether Vanzan is exposed as a sham, whether Stephanie Jones faces fallout, and whether Lively and Reynolds can continue to defend their role without consequence—that remains to be seen.

But one thing is clear: This isn’t over. Not even close.

Stay tuned, because this courtroom soap opera just hit a new level of wild.