By: Sara Shiffman
For the first several years of my career I worked in marketing and communications. Specifically, influencer marketing and how to strategically use key voices to authentically share brand messages in a way that resonates differently than traditional media or commercials. Because of my experiences in both the communications and legal worlds, I have a unique perspective on celebrity court cases, especially when they appear to be driven by shaping a message.
One of the first rules of successful influencer marketing is authenticity. If an influencer doesn’t seem to authentically like or use your brand, consumers can smell it within the first few seconds of watching a piece of content. And that rule of authenticity holds even more true when it comes to celebrity. In our new media ecosystem, celebrities use media, particularly social media, to make them seem accessible and relatable. “Stan” culture has developed out of this phenomenon and has propelled warring fandoms to go to extreme lengths to defend even the worst celebrity behavior so long as it is done by one of their faves. It’s this trend that has been the apparent force behind one of the most interesting celebrity cases in recent weeks, Justin Baldoni v. Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.
I’m not going to comment on the specifics of any of the suits, but instead want to focus on the public and influencer relations of it all and how savvy celebrities can use the lack of understanding about our court system to drive a narrative before discovery has commenced or a deposition has been taken.
In this instance Lively and Reynolds began the PR war when the complaint they filed against Baldoni coincided with an article in the New York Times. Regardless of how the complaint was subsequently dissected and Baldoni’s response and own countersuit, by using the media Lively activated the online fans and communities into two camps. Those who supported her, whether because they were true fans or fans of one of Lively’s famous friends, and those who supported Baldoni.
From there, we were off to the PR races. Although there were many who became armchair experts in litigation, defamation and federal law immediately, one of the more interesting byproducts of the new media ecosystem which wasn’t as prevalent for other high-profile celebrity cases was the number of real attorneys reading and explaining the actual complaints to their followers. Even this small amount of knowledge went far to galvanize those eager to feel like they were playing an important role in protecting their favorite from the ire of the other. Amateur sleuths uncovered even more information from anonymous social posts dating back months or hidden details in what was included in each filing. For weeks, this has all been occurring in the background without a single actual legal formality. Likely because, again without commenting on the merits, these suits and the subsequent coverage is about reputations and power, not the actual legality of the conduct alleged. It’s all about the PR and who controls the narrative. As Molly McPherson, a crisis communications strategist and TikTok influencer herself said, “The Hollywood publicist has been around for decades, almost as long as the industry itself. What’s changing, I believe, is that people are starting to see how manufactured the narratives are and the personas are.” Translation: when it comes to celebrity, the court system is simply another tool in your brand arsenal.
As an attorney I find it all fascinating and a little annoying, especially the fandom expert who’s knowledge of the legal system ends at Law & Order opining on the rationale of each side’s fairly standard legal maneuvers. As a communications professional, I can see the strategy behind each side’s moves and how each is playing out online and in fan communities. Ultimately, this case is in its infancy with initial trial dates set for March of 2026, but I will be watching to see how far each side is willing to go. Depositions are set to begin in February 2025. Who is willing to be deposed under oath? What about the tangential players? Are all parties confident that their respective reputations can withstand sworn testimony and questioning? If it gets that far, does an impartial prospective jury pool even exist as everyone battles it out online and in media? These questions underpin every large-scale celebrity legal battle and are likely why so many settle before any testimony can be given. So many times it’s about who wins among the fans and not really having one’s day in court.
About the Author:
Sara Shiffman is an experienced marketing and communications practitioner who executed strategic social, digital and influencer campaigns for some of the country’s biggest consumer, food, spirits and pharmaceutical brands. She graduated from Loyola University Law School Chicago in 2023 and was admitted to the Illinois Bar in May 2024.