Category: Lawsuits

Categories
Brigitte Macron Candace Owens Emmanuel Macron Lawsuits politics

Emmanuel & Brigitte Macron are suing right-wing grifter Candace Owens

emmanuel-&-brigitte-macron-are-suing-right-wing-grifter-candace-owens

One of the worst parts of this current hellscape is the group of people “transvestigating” prominent women or women who go viral. It happened last year at the Olympics, with Algerian boxer Imane Khelif. Khelif, a cisgender woman, beat an Italian boxer and the Italian woman cried salty tears and accused Khelif of being trans. JK Rowling piled on, as did countless internet trolls, misogynists and transphobes. In the end, Khelif won the gold medal and promptly sued Rowling and Elon Musk. What happened to Khelif was not the first time something like that happened and sadly, it was not the last. It’s now an established route for scammers and thirsty dipsh-ts. Speaking of, Candace Owens is a well-known right-wing grifter. One of her recent conspiracies is that Brigitte Macron was born a man and, as a man, she groomed Emmanuel Macron when he was a teen. Well, funny story – the Macrons are now suing the sh-t out of Candace Owens.

The French president, Emmanuel Macron, and his wife, Brigitte Macron, filed a defamation suit on Wednesday against an American right-wing podcaster who falsely claimed Ms. Macron is a man. The lawsuit, filed in Delaware Superior Court against the podcaster, Candace Owens, argues that Ms. Owens used false claims about the Macrons to “promote her independent platform, gain notoriety and make money.”

In a filing running more than 200 pages, the Macrons are suing for 22 counts of defamation and related claims, and are seeking actual and punitive damages (the amount was not specified), as well as legal costs.

The battle began in March 2024, when, according to the lawsuit, Ms. Owens “told the world” she would stake her “entire professional reputation” on the accusation that Ms. Macron, “is, in fact, a man.” Ms. Owens made the claim on her podcast, then carried by The Daily Wire, and repeated it in a post on X. Ms. Owens and The Daily Wire, a conservative media company, severed ties that month over her antisemitic rhetoric, and she repeated the claim about Ms. Macron on her independent podcast and other platforms.

Ms. Owens “disregarded all credible evidence disproving her claim,” the filing says, and “rather than engage with President and Mrs. Macron’s attempts to set the record straight, Owens mocked them and used them as additional fodder for her frenzied fan base. Because Ms. Owens systematically reaffirmed these falsehoods in response to each of our attorneys’ repeated requests for a retraction, we ultimately concluded that referring the matter to a court of law was the only remaining avenue for remedy,” the Macrons said in a statement from their lawyer.

In her podcast on Wednesday afternoon, Ms. Owens said the case was “all the proof you need” that her claim was true. Addressing Ms. Macron directly, she added, “You are literally making history in all the wrong ways.”

[From The NY Times]

“All the proof you need” – honey, they’re suing your delusional grifter ass and you’re going to lose big-time. You need to listen to your lawyer, Candy, and shut your mouth! Honestly though, the Macrons aren’t doing this for money – they’re doing this to get Candace deplatformed by any means necessary, and to ensure that she can’t spread her lies anywhere else. What’s also f–ked up is that… the situation between the Macrons and how they met was already a sketchy, problematic story. You don’t have to add lies, transphobia and bigotry to the equation – you can just talk about the actual history.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images, Backgrid and Candace’s YouTube channel.

Categories
Business Lawsuits

Lululemon sues Costco and other brands over alleged athleisure knockoffs

lululemon-sues-costco-and-other-brands-over-alleged-athleisure-knockoffs

Kirkland Signature Men's Commuter Pant 19.99 Lululemon Men's ABC Classic-Fit 5 $128

I’m a huge Costco fan and never need an excuse to go. I’ve always appreciated that despite what is going on in the outside world, their prices remain reasonable. In my area, even eggs never got super expensive, and while they did raise prices for a little while, they quickly came back down. (I swear, we’d have President Harris right now if everyone shopped at Costco.)

One of the things that Costco is well known for is their affordably priced clothing. While they sell name brands like Calvin Klein (I love those jeans), Adidas, and Banana Republic, their Kirkland brand is doing the Lord’s work. Over the years, I have amassed quite the collection of both Danskin and Kirkland leggings. They are the absolute best for travel and lounging. Those leggings have been around the world with me. This is where Lululemon enters the chat. For the past few months, Costco has been selling athleisure that allegedly dupes certain Lulu items. Last week, the company, who has always been litigious when it comes to their designs, sued Costco for selling pants, jackets, and hoodies that they say violate patent and trademark rights. The brands listed in the lawsuit are Kirkland, Danskin, Jockey, Spyder, and Hi-Tec.

You know the old saying, “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?” Well, that doesn’t necessarily play well in the world of business, particularly retail. Dupes, knockoffs, copycats—whatever you want to call them—if a high-priced brand is selling something hot, they’re not too happy when another retailer sells anything close to its likeness for less.

On Friday, June 27, lululemon filed a lawsuit against Costco in a California federal court accusing the warehouse club of selling hoodies, pants and jackets that they feel bear a strikingly similar resemblance to their own wares.

According to lululemon’s lawsuit, they state that Costco’s versions violate the patent and trademark rights lululemon holds over their own clothing designs. More specifically, it’s lululemon’s ABC pants, Define jackets and Scuba hoodies that the retailer alleges Costco is copying, then selling them under their private label Kirkland brand.

The ABC pants, which are part of lululemon’s men’s clothing offerings, actually come in a variety of different styles, from classic-fit, 5-pocket pants to joggers. Prices on these pants range from $98 – $148. Over at Costco, a pair of Kirkland Signature Men’s Commuter Pants costs just $19.99.

A cursory search of Costco.com for items similar to lululemon’s Scuba hoodie or Define jacket didn’t turn up any results that fit a similar profile to those designs.

Lululemon’s lawsuit states, “Indeed, one of the purposes of selling ‘dupes’ is to confuse consumers.”

So what is the athleticwear retailer asking for? They’re requesting an unspecified amount of monetary damages, as well as a court order that would necessitate Costco stops selling these items.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court, how Costco responds and how this affects the way retailers address what they deem as “dupes” in the future.

[From Parade]

”[O]ne of the purposes of selling ‘dupes’ is to confuse consumers.” How so? By reminding them that there is a more affordable option that’s comparative in quality? Many moons ago, before I had kids, I got caught up in the Lululemon craze. I’m talking early 2010s here. I loved how well they fit, even if I could only really afford to shop from their clearance racks. After I had kids, though, my spending priorities changed (yay, daycare!). I was so excited when I discovered Costco’s athleisure wear. It was awesome to wear something comparable that was in my price range.

Dupes are not a new thing. For every person who buys a dupe, there is also someone who is into the brand name. That said, there have been some comparison pieces written about the items in question. It does seem like at the very least, Kirkland’s 5 Pocket Performance Pants are pretty similar. I’m absolutely biased here, though, so I’m not sure if this is more of a legal or an ethical question. After spending a decent amount of time on different Reddit threads dedicated to this lawsuit, I’m pretty sure that Lulu is causing a Streisand Effect here. If people didn’t know they could get $100 pants from Costco for $20, they do now.

Embed from Getty Images

Categories
Lawsuits Tyler Perry

Tyler Perry is being sued for allegedly assaulting an actor on one of his shows

tyler-perry-is-being-sued-for-allegedly-assaulting-an-actor-on-one-of-his-shows

There have been rumors about Tyler Perry’s sexuality for years and years. Most of the rumors are simply that he’s on the downlow, or that he’s bisexual and never spoke about it publicly. Of course, it’s completely possible that he’s just really, really private about his personal life – he’s spoken about his horrible childhood, being abused as a child, and the scars that left on him. Throughout the 2010s, he was in a long-time partnership with Gelila Bekele, who is the mother of Tyler’s only child Aman. His relationship with Bekele ended in 2020, and he hasn’t been associated with anyone else publicly since then. Well, Tyler’s private life and sexuality are being served up for public discourse this week. An actor named Derek Dixon has filed a lawsuit against Tyler, claiming Tyler sexually harassed him and assaulted him.

Tyler Perry is facing an accusation of sexual assault — a claim coming from an actor on his long-running TV show, “The Oval,” and one Tyler’s camp calls a “scam” … TMZ has learned.

Derek Dixon filed a lawsuit against Perry, and in the docs he claims he and the director met at an event back in 2019 — in Derek’s words, Tyler picked him out of the crowd and asked for his phone number, suggesting he might have a role for him. As it turns out, he did … Derek says Tyler gave him a small role in 2 episodes of a show called, “Ruthless.”

Then, in January 2020, Derek says Tyler invited him to his Atlanta home, and he accepted, hoping to build a friendship that would lead to more acting gigs. But, according to the suit, while there … Derek drank too much, and ended up sleeping in a guest room. In the docs, obtained by TMZ, Derek claims Tyler got into the bed with him, and started touching his thighs — and, although, he rejected the advances that night … he claims Tyler remained interested.

Shortly thereafter, Derek says he landed the role of Dale in “The Oval” — great for his career, but he claims it was around this time that Tyler also started firing off sexually suggestive texts … including asking what Drew’s sexual preferences were, and telling him he has sex with men. Derek also notes his character, Dale, was written as a gay, homeless and desperate store clerk who had to sleep with other characters for a place to stay. He claims that’s exactly what Tyler told him he was looking for in a real life sexual partner … someone who would be loyal and dependent upon Tyler.

Derek says he feared his career would be derailed if he flatly rejected Tyler — so, instead he told him he just wasn’t “the sexual type” … but he was always terrified he’d lose his job if he complained of sexual harassment. To that point, he says Tyler, once again, invited him to Atlanta later in 2020 … and things allegedly took a dark turn. Derek claims Perry greeted him warmly, but quickly started a sexually charged conversation — like asking him if he “likes it rough in bed” — and then grabbed Derek by the throat while saying, “Look how excited you just got.” He says he pushed Tyler away, and that was the end of that alleged incident.

The most aggressive incident allegedly went down in June 2021, again at Tyler’s Atlanta home — Dixon was staying in the guest house and wearing only his underwear, when he says Tyler came in to give him a goodnight hug. He alleges Tyler yanked down his underwear, groped his butt and said, “Relax and just let it happen” and assured him it wasn’t going to hurt. Dixon says he managed to rebuff this advance by changing the subject.

According to the suit, Dixon finally filed a complaint with Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission in June 2024, and then quit “The Oval,” saying he could no longer put up with the alleged sexual harassment.

Dixon is suing Tyler and Tyler Perry Studios for quid pro quo and workplace sexual harassment and sexual assault and battery … and he’s seeking $260 million in damages.

Tyler’s attorney Matthew Boyd tells us, “This is an individual who got close to Tyler Perry for what now appears to be nothing more than setting up a scam. But Tyler will not be shaken down and we are confident these fabricated claims of harassment will fail.”

[From TMZ]

It will be interesting to see how far this gets, and whether there’s any kind of settlement. Will this be a situation similar to Jay-Z, where Jay fought like hell against the accusations? If I’m being honest, I totally believe that Tyler would flirt with an actor or give a role to someone he found attractive. But the stuff about the assaults… no, I have a hard time believing all of that.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Categories
donald trump Lawsuits Media politics

NPR sues Trump and the White House over funding ban

npr-sues-trump-and-the-white-house-over-funding-ban




If you’re like me, you probably heard of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting before you were old enough to understand what it even was, because your favorite PBS show was bookended with “Funding for this program was made possible by The Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by annual financial support from Viewers Like You.” Formally established by Congress in 1967, the CPB is a nonprofit independent of the government. That’s by design. Congress is in charge of funding CPB (which it does two years in advance), and the President may appoint (but not remove) board members; but no part of the federal government has jurisdiction over how CPB metes out its, on average, $500 million a year to local public broadcasters. So naturally, last month Trump tried firing three of CPB’s five board members, CPB sued in return, and days later Trump sharpied one of his executive orders barring CPB from distributing Congressionally appropriated funds to NPR and PBS. Now NPR is joining the fray, and are suing (along with three Colorado radio stations) Trump and the White House over the illegal funding ban:

“It is not always obvious when the government has acted with a retaliatory purpose in violation of the First Amendment. ‘But this wolf comes as a wolf,’” the legal filing for the public broadcasters states. “The Order targets NPR and PBS expressly because, in the President’s view, their news and other content is not ‘fair, accurate, or unbiased.’”

The line about the “wolf” was drawn from a 1988 dissent by the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

The lawsuit says the administration is usurping Congress’ power to direct how federal money will be spent and to pass laws. It names President Trump, White House budget director Russell Vought, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Maria Rosario Jackson, the chair of the National Endowment for the Arts, as defendants. … “The Executive Order is a clear violation of the Constitution and the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and association, and freedom of the press,” NPR President and CEO Katherine Maher said in a statement.

…Trump cited his authority as president under the Constitution and federal laws in making the order and said that neither NPR nor PBS “presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.” In other public statements, Trump and his allies have called the public broadcasters “left-wing propaganda” and made similarly disparaging remarks. An accompanying fact sheet put out by the White House cited the claim that NPR published articles “insist[ing] that COVID-19 did not originate in a lab” and “refused to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story.”

“The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is creating media to support a political party on the taxpayers’ dime. Therefore, the President is exercising his lawful authority to limit funding to NPR and PBS,” said Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, in a statement on Tuesday. “The President was elected with a mandate to ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and he will continue to use his lawful authority to achieve that objective.”

NPR’s Maher rejected such ideological characterizations, pointing to such statements by Trump to argue he was seeking to exact illegal retribution for their news coverage.

“This is retaliatory, viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times over the past 80 years that the government does not have the right to determine what counts as ‘biased,’” Maher said in her statement Tuesday. “NPR will never agree to this infringement of our constitutional rights, or the constitutional rights of our Member stations, and NPR will not compromise our commitment to an independent free press and journalistic integrity.”

[From NPR]

Trump, the boy who cried “But Hunter Biden’s laptop!” Not to suggest that journalists shouldn’t shine a light on possible corruption, which is why Trump should be pleased by the plentiful reporting NPR has been running on a very recent, blatant case of ethics violations coming out of DC. Merde. I can’t say this development of NPR suing over Trump’s retaliatory actions is surprising, coming on the heels of Trump attacking/decimating the NEA, NEH, Smithsonian, and all who refuse to kowtow to a clown. But it’s still all so surreal and more than a tad soul-crushing. Big applause goes to institutions like AP News, Harvard University, and now NPR, that are fighting back with lawsuits. The law is on our side! And for what it’s worth, the Congressionally appointed funds Trump wants to block CPB from distributing account for 15% of PBS’s total funds, 10% for NPR stations, and 1% for NPR itself directly. Not nothing, but not everything, either. So while CPB is working to retain its right to make funding possible for our public stations, now’s the time for Viewers Like Us to step in and contribute, where we can.

Embed from Getty Images

Photos via YouTube/Ted, Instagram and credit Getty

Categories
AI James Earl Jones Lawsuits SAG-AFTRA

SAG-AFTRA sued Fortnite over an AI version of James Earl Jones’s voice

sag-aftra-sued-fortnite-over-an-ai-version-of-james-earl-jones’s-voice




Darth Vader, Fortnite, and AI walk into a bar… and by “bar” I mean a legal dispute. Last September, California passed a bill requiring companies to obtain consent before making AI replicas of deceased artists. You’d think plain old decency would have meant that practice was already in place, but it seems AI hasn’t been trained on the concept of decency yet. SAG-AFTRA was especially thrilled with the bill, after AI protections for actors was one of the key issues during the 2023 strike. So here’s a new wrinkle: last September we also lost the great James Earl Jones, who, amid a storied career, was the voice of Darth Vader. Turns out Jones bequeathed permission for studios “to use A.I.-backed recreations of his voice” posthumously, which is what Llama Productions recently did to use the signature Vader voice in their video game Fortnite. They received permission from his estate, so no problem, right? Wrong! SAG-AFTRA is none too pleased that they weren’t notified and given a chance to bargain on behalf of their members, so they’ve filed an unfair labor practice charge against Llama.

Llama, who are perhaps best known for their work on the hit gaming franchise Fortnite, has recently featured an A.I. recreation of James Earl Jones’ immortal Star Wars villain, Darth Vader, in their latest expansion. The A.I.-generated recreation of Jones’ voice was added to Fortnite with the express permission of the actor’s estate.

According to SAG-AFTRA’s charges, however, Llama Productions had failed to notify the actors’ union of the A.I.-powered performance without proper notice, as reported by AP News.

In a written statement from the organization, SAG-AFTRA cited their particular issues with Llama’s recreation of Jones’ iconic villain, including the fact that the A.I.-generated performance takes potential work away from a willing voice actor.

“We celebrate the right of our members and their estates to control the use of their digital replicas and welcome the use of new technologies to allow new generations to share in the enjoyment of those legacies and renowned roles,” the statement reads. “However, we must protect our right to bargain terms and conditions around uses of voice that replace the work of our members, including those who previously did the work matching Darth Vader’s iconic rhythm and tone in video games.”

Jones — who passed away last September at the age of 93 — remains one of the key prominent actors who gave formal permission to prospective studios (such as Disney) to use A.I.-backed recreations of his voice in any future media. In SAG-AFTRA’s eyes, however, this decision could hamper the potential for working actors hoping to play the role of Jones’ most notable characters, potentially upending the larger entertainment industry as a result.

“Fortnite’s signatory company, Llama Productions, chose to replace the work of human performers with A.I. technology,” the organization wrote. “Unfortunately, they did so without providing any notice of their intent to do this and without bargaining with us over appropriate terms. As such, we have filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB against Llama Productions.”

[From Parade]

As I often say when we get another artificial intelligence-prompted lawsuit, the fields of law this technology is generating is staggering. So not only will AI companies need to seek express permission of actor’s and/or their estates (hopefully the law will expand beyond just California), but, if subsequent laws are passed as a result of this case, the AI companies will also need to negotiate with unions. Again, the amount of very, very specific law to be written in relation to AI is enough to add a year to law school, I swear. Also, I wonder why Jones went ahead and gave future permission for his voice to be AI-replicated after his death. Did he get a big payout, or a nice licensing deal that goes to his estate? It’s unusual, considering most of the stories we hear are of celebs railing against AI, both here and in the afterlife. Having worked with the estate of a musical artist, I can also attest that the people left in control can be hawkishly protective of that artist’s legacy, and I mean that equally in terms of sentimental and fiscal factors. It’ll be interesting to see how this case plays out. The history, and law books, are waiting.

Embed from Getty Images

photos credit: Robin Platzer/Twin Images/Avalon, Darla Khazei/Avalon, Enzo Fornino/Avalon

Categories
Business Lawsuits Money

Multi-state investigation shows Kroger routinely overcharging

multi-state-investigation-shows-kroger-routinely-overcharging




Last August, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bob Casey launched an investigation into allegations of surge pricing at Kroger. Kroger uses digital price tags in approximately 500 of their US stores. Their reasoning was to “save labor costs” which means they didn’t want to pay an employee to do it. The controversy was that Kroger could potentially use the digital price tags to adjust the cost of certain items based on factors like time of day, demand, weather, etc. I know; it’s very surprising that a big company would try to take advantage of its customers.

Last year, Walmart was hit with a class action suit when a man discovered stores in at least six states were charging 10-15% more than the sticker price on the shelf. Someone at Kroger must have heard about that and went, “Hold my beer” because the company is now being investigated by several states for checkout prices as high as 60% more than the price on the shelf.

Derek and Allison Hadfield became more and more fed up whenever they shopped for their family of four at their local Kroger grocery in Belpre, Ohio, a town of about 6,600 across the Ohio River from West Virginia. When they tried to save money by buying items on sale, they said, many of the discounts vanished when Kroger rang up their carts at checkout. Personal pizzas posted as on sale for $1 a piece rang up for $1.25 each. An 8oz jar of minced garlic listed at the low price of $2.49 cost $3.99 at checkout – a 60% jump.

“Almost every single time I go in the store, the listed price of an item is NOT what rings up at the register,” Allison Hadfield, who home-schools the couple’s two children, wrote in December in a complaint to Ohio’s attorney general. “I want Kroger to stop screwing over people especially when they are the only store in town!”

The family’s experiences are not an isolated problem involving a single store, an investigation of the supermarket giant’s pricing practices by the Guardian US, Consumer Reports and the Food & Environment Reporting Network has found. Kroger stores in multiple states, the investigation has revealed, show a pattern of overcharging customers by frequently listing expired sale prices on the shelves and then ringing up the regular prices at checkout – a practice that adds additional burdens on to American families already struggling under the weight of the soaring costs for eggs, meat and other groceries.

The investigation drew on “secret shopper” tests in more than a dozen states by the Guardian and its partners as well as a separate series of tests by union grocery workers in Colorado. The investigation also drew on internal corporate documents, court records, complaints to government authorities and interviews with customers, workers and union officials.

The shopping tests by the media partners found expired tags that resulted in overcharges in 14 of the 26 stores reviewed in Washington DC and 14 states, including Arizona, Michigan, Oregon, Virginia and Ohio. The tests in March, April and May identified more than 150 items with expired sale tags for which Kroger was charging more than the sale price – producing average overcharges of about $1.70 per item, an 18% markup over the discount price.

On average, the expired discount tags the tests analyzed were about two weeks out of date, suggesting that thousands of customers ended up paying more for what they likely thought were discounted items.

At times, Kroger’s sale tags don’t clearly disclose that a discount offer has ended. In some instances expiration dates are listed in small print and in others they are noted in a corporate code that is not clear to people who are not Kroger employees. Some customers catch the problem at checkout or when they go over their receipts, but workers and union officials said many busy shoppers don’t notice the overcharges.

“It really makes me feel bad because some of them are on fixed incomes and they’re older. They’re not going to pay attention,” said Joy Alexander, who works as a scan coordinator at a Kroger-owned King Soopers store in suburban Denver. “They think that when they took it off the shelf, it was $2.50. They don’t know that they’re paying $3.75 for that one item.”

Kroger, the nation’s second largest grocery retailer behind Walmart, is headquartered in Cincinnati and operates more than 2,700 stores in 35 states under a variety of names, including King Soopers, Harris Teeter, Ralphs, Fry’s Food and Drug, and others.

In a statement, Kroger said the price tag errors identified by the news organizations represented “a few dozen examples across several years out of billions of customer transactions annually”.

“While any error is unacceptable, the characterization of widespread pricing concerns is patently false,” the statement said.

Kroger did not provide detailed answers to most of the media partners’ questions about its pricing practices. The statement said the company is “committed to affordable and accurate pricing” and that it regularly conducts price checks that review “millions of items weekly to ensure our shelf prices are accurate”.

With food costs soaring from the grocery aisle to the drive-through window, Americans are spending a greater portion of their income to eat than they have in decades. US food prices climbed nearly 24% from 2020 to 2024, leaving many Americans feeling angry, anxious or dejected about their trips to the supermarket.

[From The Guardian]

Shame on Kroger for doing this. It’s especially heinous when they’re the only store in town and people don’t have any other options. Even if they aren’t the only option, Kroger probably figures they can get away with doing this because people aren’t paying attention. It’s only after they look at the receipt that they may notice something is off. It’s both appalling and ballsy to do this during a time when the cost of groceries is a huge issue. Beyond their flagship stores, Kroger owns Ralph’s, Harris Teeter, Dillion’s, and more. Even if you’re not shopping at one of their stores, here’s your reminder to always check your receipts!

The full article is much longer than what I excerpted, but it’s really worth the read. The states that are currently investigating or taking action against Kroger are Ohio, Colorado, California, Illinois, and Michigan. They recently settled a lawsuit with the state of Utah, but have had complaints made against them in other states. For example, someone in Arlington, Texas reported that price tags at their local Kroger were five years out of date. Companies shouldn’t be allowed to do this. At what point will there be an actual reckoning?

Categories
Blake Lively Justin Baldoni Lawsuits Taylor Swift

Justin Baldoni’s lawyer: Blake Lively threatened to release Taylor Swift’s texts?!?

justin-baldoni’s-lawyer:-blake-lively-threatened-to-release-taylor-swift’s-texts?!?

Last Friday, the announcement came that Taylor Swift was being subpoenaed as a witness in the on-going lawsuits between Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively. I expected Taylor to be called as a witness, if only to provide context to her presence at a meeting between Baldoni and Lively (at Lively’s home). Following that meeting, there was a flurry of texts and voice memos between Baldoni and Lively, one of which was the introduction of Blake-as-Khaleesi, where she called Taylor and Ryan Reynolds her “dragons.”

It’s worth noting that Taylor has not been in any kind of rush to send out supportive statements for Blake, nor have the two women been seen or photographed together since the lawsuits blew up over Christmas. Taylor’s rep issued a statement about the subpoena, but it was mostly Taylor covering her own ass, not covering Blake’s. I still believe the story that the whole Khaleesi-text situation was revelatory for Taylor, and she finally understood that Blake has been leveraging her name for years. I think that has caused Taylor to distance herself from Blake this year. But according to Baldoni’s lawyer, the reason why Taylor hasn’t cut ties with Blake completely is because Blake threatened to expose Taylor’s texts about It Ends With Us??

Justin Baldoni’s attorneys brought forth a bombshell claim in a new court filing, alleging that Blake Lively threatened best friend Taylor Swift to publicly support her in her It Ends With Us legal battle. A lawyer for Lively calls the allegation “categorically false.”

After pushback from Lively and Ryan Reynolds on a subpoena issued to Venable, the law firm that represents Swift, Baldoni’s lawyers responded in a letter to the judge on Wednesday, May 14, arguing why they believe the subpoena is necessary in this case.

“The Lively Defendants’ insistence that the Subpoena seeks irrelevant information is wrong,” writes Bryan Freedman in the letter. Freedman claims to have received a tip from a “source who is highly likely to have reliable information,” according to the letter. That anonymous source alleged that Lively asked Swift to delete text messages.

Another allegation included in the letter suggests Lively’s attorney contacted Swift’s attorney “and demanded that Ms. Swift release a statement of support for Ms. Lively” — as well as “intimating that if Ms. Swift refused to do so, private text messages of a personal nature in Ms. Lively’s possession would be released.”

Freedman alleges that they were also informed that Swift’s lawyer responded to Lively’s attorney and “addressed these inappropriate and apparently extortionate threats….” He adds, “It is those communications that the Wayfarer Parties seek to obtain” as potential evidence of “an attempt to intimidate and coerce a percipient witness in this litigation.”

In a statement to PEOPLE, Lively’s attorney Mike Gottlieb says, “This is categorically false. We unequivocally deny all of these so-called allegations, which are cowardly sourced to supposed anonymous sources, and completely untethered from reality. This is what we have come to expect from the Wayfarer parties’ lawyers, who appear to love nothing more than shooting first, without any evidence, and with no care for the people they are harming in the process. We will imminently file motions with the court to hold these attorneys accountable for their misconduct here.”

[From People]

It’s perfectly possible that Baldoni’s lawyers are just throwing sh-t to the wall and seeing what sticks. But here’s the thing: it actually is very important to Baldoni’s case to see the texts (related to It Ends With Us) between Blake and Taylor, and it’s also important to know if any of those texts have been deleted on either side. Like… Baldoni’s side has every right to subpoena Taylor as a witness (she was actually present at a significant meeting), but Baldoni also has the right to see any and all comms between Lively and Swift regarding It Ends With Us and/or the lawsuits. Now, if Blake actually threatened to release Taylor’s texts in a potentially retaliatory measure if Taylor didn’t support her… LMAO. Blake would be completely done. Taylor would go nuclear.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Cover Images.