Hot & Not in Hollywood

Blake Lively’s legal battle with Perez Hilton exposes the machinery behind digital defamation. Here’s how the case is unfolding and why it could reshape influencer ethics.

Blake Lively isn’t just fighting for her reputation; she’s fighting the system that weaponized it

In a motion filed in the Southern District of New York, Lively’s legal team demanded that celebrity blogger Perez Hilton produce communications and documents tied to a July subpoena. According to NewsNation, the actress alleges Hilton acted “at the request of, or on behalf of” Wayfarer Studios, the production company behind It Ends With Us, directed by Justin Baldoni.

The lawsuit against Wayfarer, filed in December 2024, accuses Baldoni of sexual harassment and retaliation. But the scope has widened. Lively claims Hilton, Candace Owens, and Andy Signore were enlisted to amplify defamatory narratives across digital platforms, turning commentary into coordinated attack.

The Content Blitz: 500+ Posts, One Target

Since August 2024, Hilton has published more than 500 videos and headlines targeting Lively. Us Weekly reports that the posts weren’t just critical; they were cruel. Hilton coined terms like “Blackface Blake,” “Ku Klux Khaleesi,” and “Litigious Lively,” painting her as manipulative and dishonest.

Lively’s legal team argues this wasn’t independent commentary. It was a calculated effort to discredit her, allegedly orchestrated by Baldoni’s camp and executed by influencers with massive reach. She’s subpoenaed Hilton for documents that could reveal whether he was part of a larger smear network.

Hilton’s Defense: “I’m a Clown in a Circus”

Hilton responded with mockery and deflection. In a YouTube video, he revealed he filed a motion to quash the subpoena in Nevada, arguing that New York isn’t the proper venue. Sportskeeda reports that Hilton admitted to calling Judge Lewis Liman “a clown,” saying the case was a circus and he was “a clown in it.”

He insists he’s a media commentator exercising protected speech, not a hired gun. But Lively’s team isn’t convinced. They argue his refusal to turn over communications suggests deeper coordination with Baldoni’s legal team and influencer network.

The Influence Web: Who’s Really Pulling the Strings?

Lively’s subpoenas extend beyond Hilton. Courthouse News reveals she’s targeting other creators, including Owens and Signore, who allegedly echoed Baldoni’s narrative. Her attorney, Michael Gottlieb, suspects Baldoni’s lawyer Bryan Freedman may have brokered deals with these influencers to push anti-Lively content.

Freedman denies any payments were made, but the judge has allowed limited discovery into potential agreements. Gottlieb claims Owens shared an “exclusive scoop” using information from Freedman’s affidavit, and Hilton posted more than 500 times with content skewing pro-Baldoni.

Alleged Smear Network

The Trial That Could Rewrite the Rules of Influence

This isn’t just celebrity drama; it’s a test case for how courts treat influencer content in defamation and harassment suits. If Lively proves Hilton and others were part of a coordinated smear campaign, it could redefine the boundaries of protected speech and media ethics in the influencer era.

The trial is set for March 2026. Until then, subpoenas are flying, depositions are stacking, and the stakes keep rising.

Blake Lively isn’t just challenging Perez Hilton. She’s challenging the machinery behind digital defamation, and she’s doing it with receipts.

~ * ~ Stay tuned, stay savage, stay sparkly — Holly out. ~ * ~