Macron vs Candace Owens lawsuit

Summary

Fame Under Fire: Macron vs. Candace Owens Lawsuit – Detailed Summary

Episode Release Date: July 31, 2025
Podcast: Fame Under Fire
Host: Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty
Produced by BBC Sounds

---

Introduction

In this compelling episode of Fame Under Fire, host Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty delves into high-profile controversies involving celebrities and public figures. The primary focus centers on two major cases: Candace Owens' defamation lawsuit against France's First Lady, Brigitte Macron, and Blake Lively's deposition in her own lawsuit against co-star Justin Baldoni. Additionally, the episode touches upon Sydney Sweeney's contentious American Eagle advertisement and its ensuing public backlash.

---

Sydney Sweeney’s American Eagle Advertisement Controversy

Timeline: [00:51] – [06:42]

The episode opens with a discussion on Sydney Sweeney's latest American Eagle jeans advertisement, which has stirred significant online debate. The ad features Sweeney prominently and includes subtle references that many interpret as nods to eugenics—a discredited belief system advocating for the improvement of human genetics through selective breeding.

Candace Owens' Perspective: Candace Owens criticizes the advertisement, stating:

"It's diabolical copy in this political climate. Let's talk about that American eagle, Sydney Sweeney ad and eugenicist dog whistles. We can't keep pretending that media and marketing exist in a vacuum..."
[02:15]

Host’s Analysis: Anoushka highlights the play on words between "genes" and "jeans," noting that despite partial profits supporting domestic abuse survivors, the campaign's overtones can be offensive to many. She explains:

"...Sydney Sweeney is a Caucasian woman who typifies Western beauty standards. The use of the word genes has historically been the language of eugenics..."
[03:45]

Expert Insights:

Molly McPherson, PR and crisis manager, offers that the campaign’s intention was to generate conversation and viral marketing:

"...when no one flags something like that, it has an intentionality that is so obvious. We're talking about it right now. People are talking about it online..."
[04:18]

Legal Implications:

Sean Kent, a criminal defense attorney, discusses the potential for litigation:

"They could try. But is it going to go anywhere? No. Lawsuits require proof of damages, and this ad, while offensive to some, hasn’t caused specific harm that meets legal thresholds."
[05:06]

Despite the backlash, American Eagle has not retracted the ad, leaving it up as it continues to drive conversation.

---

Candace Owens vs. Brigitte Macron: A Defamation Lawsuit

Timeline: [06:42] – [14:50]

The spotlight shifts to Candace Owens, a right-wing political commentator, who has made explosive claims about Brigitte Macron, France's First Lady. Owens alleges that Macron was biologically male named Jean Michel Trogneau—a claim that conflates Brigitte with her brother of the same name.

Background: These allegations gained traction after a journalist, Natasha Ray, appeared in a now-deleted interview with spiritualist Amadine Roy, which was viewed approximately 450,000 times before removal. Brigitte Macron successfully sued both Ray and Roy for defamation, securing a favorable verdict, which was later overturned by a French appeals court. The case is escalating to a higher judicial authority.

Candace Owens' Allegations: Owens expands her claims in a podcast series titled "Becoming Brigitte", implicating the Macron family in various conspiracies, including allegations of being part of an elite group practicing homosexuality, pedophilia, and worshiping a transgender deity.

Legal Strategy and PR Management:

Molly McPherson explains the Macron family's decision to sue Owens:

"...they are going against a personality who is struggling reputationally in the US. She's almost a good target to win a case like this..."
[08:31]

First Amendment Protections:

Sean Kent elaborates on the challenges in defamation lawsuits involving public figures in the U.S.:

"...to sue a public official like Candace or like the president or anybody of that, you must prove actual malice. You must prove falsity and that you knew it was false or recklessly disregarded the truth..."
[10:33]

He references the landmark case New York Times vs. Sullivan to underscore the high burden of proof required to establish defamation against a public figure.

Host’s Commentary: Anoushka reviews the exhaustive 200+ page lawsuit filed in Delaware, which includes:

• Photographic Evidence: Photos of a young Brigitte alongside her brother.
• Journalistic Confirmation: Media outlets confirming the distinct identities of Brigitte and Jean Michel.
• Brigitte Macron’s Reactions: Official retraction requests sent to Owens, which were allegedly ignored.

Sean Kent’s Insights: Kent discusses the possibility of punitive damages if Owens is found to have acted with actual malice, drawing parallels to Alex Jones’ legal battles:

"...if they can prove actual malice, you can see billions with a B because of the punitive dam aspect."
[13:29]

Candace Owens’ Reaction: Owens counters in her podcast:

"If you need any more evidence that Brigitte Macron is definitely a man, it is just what is happening right now. The idea that you would file this lawsuit is all of the proof that you need."
[14:50]

Host’s Analysis: Anoushka highlights the aggressive stance Owens has taken, including her previous encouragement for the Macrons to sue, indicating a relentless pursuit that could undermine her legal standing.

---

Blake Lively’s Deposition in the Justin Baldoni Lawsuit

Timeline: [14:50] – [22:49]

The episode transitions to Blake Lively, who is in the midst of a lawsuit against her co-star and producer, Justin Baldoni, along with his production company, Wayfarer Studios, charging sexual harassment, retaliation, breach of contract, and defamation.

Allegations: Lively accuses Baldoni of creating an unprofessional and hostile work environment, citing specific incidents such as:

• Unchoreographed Intimacy: Baldoni allegedly inserted unscripted physical acts like biting and sucking on her lower lip during a kissing scene.
• Unplanned Sex Scenes: Incorporation of unscripted sex scenes in flashbacks without proper choreography.

Expert Commentary:

Molly McPherson discusses the reputational strategies:

"...this case has been so incredibly damaging for Blake Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds. It is a case of two people who will not stop digging and they are looking for any type of out or blame shifting..."
[17:09]

Sean Kent explains the potential fallout from the deposition:

"...the deposition is going to be a big deal. And then later, at some point, those depositions will be released for the public."
[19:53]

Astroturfing Claims: Lively alleges an untraceable smear campaign, including tactics like starting Reddit forums to sway public opinion.

Molly McPherson critiques these claims:

"...it's incredibly difficult to prove in court. But what Blake Lively's side is missing is that she did not have a lot of reputational goodwill to begin with..."
[18:15]

Legal and Reputational Impact:

Discussing the sexual harassment claims, Sean Kent warns that:

"...the stronger the sexual harassment allegations are, the harder we're going to go after you on the reputational damages... this deposition is going to be a big deal."
[21:33]

He emphasizes that Blake Lively's reputation is already vulnerable, and the upcoming deposition could further damage her public image.

---

Conclusion

Host Anoushka Mutanda-Doughty wraps up the episode by underscoring the gravity of the cases discussed. She emphasizes the ongoing nature of these legal battles and commits to providing updates as new information, such as Blake Lively's deposition, becomes available. Anoushka encourages listeners to subscribe and engage with the podcast for continued coverage on similar high-stakes fame-related controversies.

---

Key Takeaways

• Defamation Lawsuits with Public Figures: The episode elucidates the complex legal landscape surrounding defamation claims against public figures, highlighting the stringent requirements for proving actual malice in the U.S. legal system.

• Impact of Public Backlash on Advertising: Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle ad serves as a case study on how advertising can inadvertently or intentionally provoke significant public discourse and potential reputational damage.

• Legal and Reputational Strategies in High-Profile Cases: Through insights from legal and PR experts, the episode demonstrates how strategic litigation and public relations maneuvers interplay in shaping public perception during scandals.

• The Role of Media and Social Platforms: The discussions reveal the potent influence of social media and online forums in magnifying controversies, often complicating the legal and reputational outcomes for those involved.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Candace Owens on the American Eagle ad:
  "It's diabolical copy in this political climate. Let's talk about that American eagle, Sydney Sweeney ad and eugenicist dog whistles."
  [02:15]

• Sean Kent on Defamation Standards:
  "To sue a public official like Candace or like the president or anybody of that, you must prove actual malice. You must prove falsity and that you knew it was false or recklessly disregarded the truth."
  [10:33]

• Molly McPherson on Astroturfing Claims:
  "It's incredibly difficult to prove in court. But what Blake Lively's side is missing is that she did not have a lot of reputational goodwill to begin with."
  [18:15]

• Candace Owens Responding to Lawsuit:
  "If you need any more evidence that Brigitte Macron is definitely a man, it is just what is happening right now. The idea that you would file this lawsuit is all of the proof that you need."
  [14:50]

---

This episode offers a comprehensive exploration of the tangled web of fame, legal battles, and media influence, providing listeners with a nuanced understanding of how public figures navigate crises and the relentless pursuit of truth in the modern age.

Transcript

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

BBC Sounds Music Radio podcasts. Hello, and welcome to Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anoushka Mutanda Doughty. For those of you who have been with us since Diddy on trial, welcome back. And to our listeners who are dipping in a toe and seeing if they like it, this is the place to come for a facts first approach to the topics dominating our timelines. When celebrities, sports stars, politicians, influencers and royalty find themselves in the firing line, whether it's a lawsuit or scandal, we're going to pre bunk, debunk, fact check, myth bust, interrogate, and of course, answer your questions. You can send them to me on social media or on our WhatsApp at 03306-78-1114. That's 0330678. Triple one four.

[Candace Owens]

Now, coming up today, the life of Candace Owens. It works like this. I wake up, I stretch, I have a cup of coffee and then I am served with a lawsuit. I think that's the morning routine, my friends. That is clearly my morning routine. It is so effortless. And today I have been sued.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Then we have the Blake Lively deposition happening. She's suing her co star Justin Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios for sexual harassment. Joining me today to break all of this down is our resident criminal defense attorney from South Carolina, Sean Kent. Hi, Sean.

[Sean Kent]

Hey, how are you doing, Anushka?

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

I'm Good. And our PR and crisis manager, Molly McPherson joining from just north of Boston. Hi, Molly.

[Molly McPherson]

Oh, happy to be here, Anushka.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Right. So first up today we have Sydney Sweeney. First came the Bathwater soap scandal where she was literally selling her bathwater as soap. And now this advert for American Eagle jeans, which has upset a fair few people on socials as they feel it has an undercurrent of eugenics. Jeans are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color. My jeans are blue. Sydney Sweeney Casper jeans. Now, Molly, I have no doubt that you've seen this, Sean. This is definitely your first time watching this advert. For the uninitiated, Sean gets all his clothes tailor made and he doesn't shop off the rack. So I don't think he's paying attention to American Eagle adverts. But this is what people on TikTok have had to say.

[Candace Owens]

It's diabolical copy in this political climate. Let's talk about that American eagle, Sydney Sweeney ad and eugenicist dog whistles. We, we can't keep pretending that media and marketing exist In a vacuum, that ad doesn't exist without the culture it's selling into. This is American Eagle's most expensive ad to date, meaning that nothing in this ad was accidental and there was a decision made about what cultural cues they wanted to sell to in this ad.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Now, this advert is clearly making a play on the word jeans. Jeans. We've seen this before. It's important to note that a portion of the profits are going towards supporting survivors of domestic abuse. Although some people think that that actually makes this a lot worse. Wait, I thought that the super sexed up American Eagle ad with Sydney Sweeney, with all the eugenics and Aryan race overtones being for domestic violence awareness was a joke. I thought that was a joke that people were making. So we've had some different perspectives there. But for somebody who doesn't really understand why people are using the word eugenics, there is a broader context you need to consider. Sydney Sweeney is a Caucasian woman who is seen as someone who typifies Western beauty standards. The use of the word genes has historically been the language of eugenics, which is a belief that humans can be improved genetically by selective breeding. This has been obviously discredited, that pseudoscience. It's often used to celebrate a so called ideal of someone with white, blonde, blue eyes. Sydney Sweeney. Molly. The sentiment online is that this advert is completely tone death without understanding that the idea of good genes and using that wordplay can upset a lot of people.

[Molly McPherson]

Well, in ad campaign like that, when you're working with a celebrity, there's so much intentionality behind it. This campaign, from concept all the way to production to distributing it out to everyone. And the younger female algorithm went through a lot of hands. And when no one flags something like that, it has an intentionality that is so obvious. We're talking about it right now. People are talking about it online. I bet everyone behind the scenes from American Eagle and that campaign views it as a success.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Would you go as far to say that this was rage bait?

[Molly McPherson]

I don't think that's printed anywhere in the concept briefing, you know, at the ad agency. But if you walk into an American Eagle, you're going to walk in and you're going to see a lot of girls who look like Sydney Sweeney. I mean, that is their target market. They want conversation, they want dialogue. This is viral marketing in this day and age. You know, if people aren't talking about an ad, then the ad isn't successful. The fact also that they had money flagged to go towards domestic violence shows that they were Thinking about that they wanted to have kind of that backup as well, that the money is going somewhere. When the rage started, it's all about inciting a conversation. And in that case it worked. The question is, is it the right thing to do or not?

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Now, we asked American Eagle and Sydney Sweeney for a response and they didn't get back to us, nor have they made a comment anywhere else. And the, you know, all the adverts are still up and the press release is still up. Sean, could someone sue American Eagle and say that they are perpetuating a rhetoric that encourages racial tension, racial hatred?

[Sean Kent]

They could try. I mean, that's the one thing about being in America is you can sue for just about anything. Is it going to go anywhere? No. The easiest way to remember what lawsuits is you have to have some type of damages. And so if somebody was to sue American Eagle and say, we think this is awful because an ad can be awful. There have been awful ads in America since the generation of time. But those ads have to be something that creates damages for somebody else, that targets someone specifically and then it specifically hurts somebody. So let's take that one step further. Let's say it is doing some type of rage baiting and then let's start saying that short, white, blonde, blue eyed women are starting to attack and physically beat African Americans or people who don't fit into. Then they could say this ad is responsible for X, Y and z. In the 80s, there used to be a lot of lawsuits brought against rappers because they said rappers and so forth was creating these songs that would make kids do certain things. There are people who tried to sue shock artists such as Marilyn Manson and things of these nature because they were saying people were killing themselves because of this music. It's so hard and it's so targeted. So is it possible? Yeah, I don't think it's gotten to that threshold yet where something bad has happened.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

That's so interesting. Now if you don't reside in the same corners of the Internet, you might not have stumbled across this. But for quite some time now, podcaster and right wing political commentator Candace Owens has been accusing the first lady of France, Brigitte Macron, of being born a man named Jean Michel Trogneau, which is actually the name of Brigitte's brother. And this is very confusing and I'm with you on that. But follow me. Candace claims that Brigitte lived the first 30 years of her life as a biological male before undergoing a sex change and stealing the identity of the real Brigitte. These claims were first kind of semi popularized by a journalist called Natasha Ray. In a now deleted 4 hour long interview with a spiritualist called Amadine Roy. The video got 450,000 views before it was taken down. And it made some waves. Brigitte Macron sued Natasha and Amandine for the defamation and won. But that verdict was then actually overturned by an appeals court in France. So Brigitte Macron and her brother are escalating the case to a higher court. But this conspiracy really erupted when Candace Owens started a series on it on her podcast called Becoming Brigitte. Alongside the claims that Brigitte is lying about her identity, Candace has implied that the Macrons are silencing journalists who are looking into this, this story. But the Macrons are now suing Candace and the lawsuit claims that Candace has said that the Macrons are part of a very small group of elite oligarchs who routinely practice homosexuality and pedophilia, as well as worshiping a transgender deity. Molly. A claim like this flies on social media, and the Macron say in the lawsuit that many people have seen it and believed it. So tell me, Candace has made this claim Sunday night, it's Monday morning. You're the PR and crisis manager for the Macrons. What are you doing?

[Molly McPherson]

Well, to file a lawsuit for claims like this, it's really difficult to prove in a court of law. And Sean knows this certainly, but this is so clearly false that they absolutely have a case. So typically with clients, they always come to me and they want to go legal first. Most often I tell them not to do it because it is so difficult to achieve a legal win in this. But in this case, they're going against a personality who is struggling a bit reputationally in the US So she's almost a good target to win a case like this. So from the Macron point of view, I actually thought it was a good move.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Do you think that maybe she should have just been like, here's a picture of me at this age. Here's a picture of me at this age. Here I am doing a blood test or whatever.

[Molly McPherson]

No, because they're not just attacking her. They don't want to prove and be on the defensive. They want to be on the offensive. Here. It's. They're sending a message. And she is someone who is considered a conservative Republican. But what may not be clear from a global perspective is that she's split from the MAGA crowd. You know, she is not aligned with MAGA as much anymore. So she is someone who's clamoring for relevance. She's clamoring for clicks and views, for money. And it's pretty obvious here. So I think legally they found a weakness in her brand right now and attacked Sean.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

You've read through this 200 something page lawsuit. It starts by laying out. It's so long. And I thought we had long ones with the Sean Combs trial, but this is long. It's very thorough. It starts by laying out who Bridgie is, including pictures of her when she was a young girl, including newspaper clippings that announced her birth, accompanied by a photo. In that photo, you can see her along with her brother, who is Jean Michel Chogno. Candice is an American. This lawsuit is filed in Delaware. You guys have a codified, entrenched constitution, unlike us. And we know you don't play about your amendments. How far is Candace protected by her First Amendment right to free speech?

[Sean Kent]

By far one of the best questions you have asked. I love that Molly made the comment that. And I've done it. She's exactly right. We generally don't encourage people to jump into the lawsuits. I've had a lot of people come to me and they're like, I want to follow laws. And I'm like, whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's slow down a minute. It is easy to sue somebody for defamation, okay? A personal person, a regular person, because we don't want people out there talking about us. A defamation lawsuit means just that. I am talking bad about you and people are hearing it and it's upsetting them. What changes when you sue a public figure or a public official? That is so much harder in the United States. We have a case called New York Times versus Sullivan. What ended up happening? That's a case from the civil rights movements back in the 60s. What ended up happening? Somebody brought an ad and they said there was all this racist stuff happening down in Alabama. Some of the stuff in the ad just wasn't true. So the Sheriff down there, Mr. Sullivan or the publicist said, I have a problem with that. I want to sue the New York Times. Stuff in this article is simply not true. He won in Alabama. They appealed all the way up to our Supreme Court. And our Supreme Court said, no, the press should have a right because of freedom of speech to talk about public officials. We don't want public officials because they're public, because they're president, telling the press, you can't talk about me. So what they said is to be able to sue a public official like Candace or like the president or anybody of that, you must prove actual malice. Okay, you Must prove when you are saying something about somebody you knew, it's falsity at the time that you made it and you said it with actual malice that you wanted to hurt somebody. It seems easy. That is such a high standard. So that's going to be the hard part for them to be able to prove that Candace acted with either actual malice or her recklessness was so gross it raised to a level that a normal person should not have done that. And the lawsuit, I think it does a decent job of showing that she's acting with actual malice. But it's a higher standard than you.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Think it is now.

[Sean Kent]

Sorry, long winded answer.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

No, no. But I tried to see where they were doing this in the lawsuit, how they could prove that. So in the lawsuit it lays out that the Macron sent Candace what they refer a December retraction letter essentially asking her to retract her previous claims. And they lay out that in this letter they provided photographic evidence of a young Brigitte and Brigitte at her first marriage. They also highlight how journalists have met with Brigitte's brother, Jean Michel Trogno, who has confirmed that he and Brigitte are not the same person. They also attached photos of Brigitte and Jean together in 2021. All of the photos they say they sent to Candace in this December retraction are freely available to view in the lawsuit. So in sending her that December retraction and her continuing to make those claims after she acknowledge that she's read it, surely then that is the proof of actual malice.

[Sean Kent]

Maybe. And that's going to be the question. And that is going to be their concept because they're doubling down. I don't know who is representing her is not the smartest thing that I've seen because her doubling down she refers to as she's gotten a lawsuit and she literally doesn't care. And she's like, this is. And she's doubling down. That goes to show punitive damages. Punitive damages was where the problem occurs. Punitive damages in America basically mean these are damages to dissuade the conduct that you have done. These are damages that can go through the roof, that can show significant more money. If you follow in America, if the Sandy Hooks shooting, there's a shock jock, Alex Jones, and he is to the tune of owing billions of dollars. Not, not, not with an M. Billions. Because he doubled down the same way that Candace did. The only difference between Sandy Hooks and Candace is, is, is she a public figure what she is? And if they can prove actual malice, if they Prove actual malice. You can see billions with a B because of the punitive dam aspect. Because what I was curious about is how are the Macrons going to be able to show regular damages? How has this hurt you? But the fact she's doubling down, they can show punitive damages, and this could be troubling for her.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

So we asked Candace's people for a response, and they pointed us to her podcast where we could pull some clips of how she feels about this lawsuit.

[Candace Owens]

If you need any more evidence that Brigitte Macron is definitely a man, it is just what is happening right now. The idea that you would file this lawsuit is all of the proof that you need.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Yeah. Even before she was sued, Candace encouraged the Macrons to file a lawsuit on her podcast, saying, bring it. I'll run down to the courthouse and file the lawsuit for you. I might even cover your legal expenses. So she's been encouraging them to take legal action for a while. Now. Blake Lively is due to sit for her deposition. She will face questions from Justin Baldoni's lawyer. That's the man she's suing. You asked us so many times during the Diddy podcast to cover this. But for those of you who don't know this case or you need a refresher. Blake Lively, she's an actress. You might know her from Gossip Girl or I know her from the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants. She was in a film called It Ends With Us. She was starring opposite Justin Baldoni. He's an actor, but he was also a producer and director of the movie, so technically, he was her boss. Blake is suing Justin and other companies and people involved in making of the film for sexual harassment, retaliation, breach of contract, and defamation. We asked Justin Baldoni for a response, and Baldoni's legal team told the BBC at the time the allegations were categorically false. He also sued Blake for defamation, but this was thrown out. Now, Blake says the atmosphere on the set was very unprofessional. She highlights things like unchoreographed intimacy, claiming Baldoni discreetly bit and sucked on her lower lip during a kissing scene where he improvised numerous kisses. What we typically see in films is that the intimacy is choreographed almost like a dance routine, so they will agree how many times they kiss, in what way, what camera they're going to be facing. She's saying that he just randomly slotted this in. She says it wasn't just her. She also claims that Baldoni inserted a sex scene in a flashback sequence where the younger version of Blake's Character is shown losing her virginity. Lively says that she was told that after he called cut, Baldoni went up to the actors and said, I know I'm not supposed to say this, but that was hot. Did you two practice? But part of this lawsuit, outside of the sexual harassment element, is this allegation of untraceable, basically reputational damage being done. Molly Blake is alleging that she was a victim of astroturfing and an untraceable smear campaign. What actually is astroturfing?

[Molly McPherson]

Astroturfing is not typically used in the celebrity realm. It's in the issues management realm. So if you were to think of renewable energy, for instance, versus coal, they want to, you know, blanket out, carpet out a type of issue to get out there. You know, from a lobbying perspective, you don't find it in the celebrity realm. This case has been so incredibly damaging for Blake Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds. It is, it is a case of two people who will not stop digging and they are looking for any type of out or blame shifting, whether it's astroturfing, you know, putting viral messages, negative reputation out there. It is absolutely going to damage her career that I don't think she's ever going to come back from it. And for them to put PR on trial, so to speak, I don't think that angle is working as well.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

But when she refers to an untraceable smear campaign, what kind of tactics are we? I mean, she references things like starting Reddit forums. What other tactics are we talking about?

[Molly McPherson]

Yeah, you know, it's important to understand too that people assume, when you're a publicist, a lot of publicists, you know, focus on entertainment and celebrity. Their job is to be proactive. Their job is to get press. But then as we got into the social media realm, when we got into Twitter, we saw this a lot with Johnny Depp v. Amber. Heard people found out that you can purchase influence, you know, you can boost, you can use bots. You know, there are different things. So people figure out, like fissures in technology where we can try and sway public opinion that changes so rapidly that people are kind of onto it. So that's why you're not going to get, you know, a massive bot campaign. Now we're finding, well, you can influence forums like a Reddit forum and people will. All you need is like a few ringers in there to start a conversation in a certain way and it will spiral down. Because people online love getting into sides. You know, it's all about polarizing. So, yes, you can find technically savvy people who might try to sway a Reddit thread, but in this case, it's incredibly difficult to prove. But what Blake Lively's side is missing out on is that Blake Lively did not have a lot of reputational goodwill to begin with. She was starting in somewhat of a negative area. And so for them to claim that all this negativity about her is just due to this astroturfing is not even realistic. And not only that, it's really difficult to prove in court.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Sean, do you agree in terms of reputational damage?

[Sean Kent]

Absolutely. Beyond. Absolutely. And the only thing that's going to make this worse is sitting for a deposition that is going to be recorded, that it's going to be released at some point in time. You know, a lot of times we file lawsuits, and our goal is to try to settle them before our clients sit for a deposition. Depositions are never good for somebody who's trying to, especially in these type of situations, because I don't care how great her preparation is, she's going to come across poorly in a deposition justice. Because there's so much stuff you can ask. Remember, when you're talking about a deposition, you can ask somebody anything, especially if they're the one filing the lawsuit. So all the reputations, all the rumors, all your innuendos, all the other mean girl stuff that she has done in her life is all going to come in and to go to what Molly is saying. What they're going to try to do is two things. If I'm just inside, I'm like, let's limit our damages and let's talk about how crappy her reputation was before all of this started. Let's talk about all the people in Hollywood, haters, her, all the people who didn't want to work with her, all the rumors bad about her, the deposition, believe it or not. You remember when we. Not to hearken back to Diddy, but when I told you how bad it was going to be for some of these witnesses to get on the stand, well, the best way to think about it is that was awful. And there was a referee. The judge was the referee saying, no, no, no, you've hit her too much. That's enough. There's no referee in a deposition, so it's going to be worse than what it was on the stand. And then later, at some point, those depositions will be released for the public.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Okay, this is one claim in the lawsuit about reputational damage and her being targeted. But the actual other claim about sexual harassment, which makes up the body of the lawsuit is a very serious allegation.

[Sean Kent]

Absolutely.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

And she does seem to have evidence that speaks to it being an unsafe environment, including other people on the set who said that they'd experienced their own things. So are we getting a little bit distracted by what happened after the fact? I mean, how strong is the case in the sexual harassment side of things?

[Sean Kent]

Yes, we're getting distracted. And that's what lawyers do. That's our job. It's like that's exactly what they're trying to do, because the stronger the sexual harassment allegations are, the harder we're going to go after you on the reputational damages would be from my point of view, because if you are a bad plaintiff, meaning if you get on the stand and the jury does not like you, it doesn't matter how strong your case is. I hate to say it doesn't matter, but this deposition is going to be a big deal.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Could she just sit there and if she's asked a question she doesn't like, could she just plead the Fifth, like, the whole time? No.

[Sean Kent]

No lawyer would advise her to do it, because how much worse does that make you look if you're in a deposition and you are the one bringing the lawsuit, pleading the Fifth means that you are looking at some type of criminal liability. There's something that could hurt you criminally. And if you take the Fifth during the deposition, you're all but telling the world, if I answer this question, I am subjecting myself to my own liability.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Well, we're gonna follow on with this case, of course, and we'll take a look at that deposition when it's released. Molly, Sean, thank you so much for joining me today. Thanks, Molly.

[Molly McPherson]

Thanks so much, Anoushka.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

And thank you, Sean.

[Sean Kent]

Thank you, Anoushka. Thank you, Molly. Good to see you.

[Molly McPherson]

Hey, good to see you. That was a good conversation.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

That was our resident criminal defense attorney, Sean Kent from South Carolina, and PR and crisis manager Molly. Molly McPherson joining from just north of Boston. And that's it for this episode of Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anoushka Mutanda Doughty. Make sure you subscribe and turn on your push notifications so you never miss a thing. And don't forget, you can get in touch with us on WhatsApp at 03306-78114. That's 03306-78114. Let us know your questions or thoughts on who we should be talking about and if you've been a victim of any of the issues we've spoken about in this program and you live in the UK, you can find some [e-mail] Actionline Hey, I'm Laura Whitmore.

[Sean Kent]

And I'm Ian Sterling.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Anyone who knows us knows we love talking all things true crime. Each week, we revisit cases that you won't actually believe. Murder, fraud, catfishing, heist, blackmail, brainwashing, betrayal. And even given a case solved by.

[Sean Kent]

Chewing gum, it's less who done it and more they did. What? Murder they Wrote with Laura Whitmorn. Ian Sterling.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Listen now on BBC Science.