Blake Lively's Legal Team Accuses Justin Baldoni of Using Depp-Heard Style PR Tactics Against the Actress

Blake Lively's legal team has accused Justin Baldoni of deploying what they describe as 'Depp-Heard style' public relations tactics during their ongoing legal dispute in the US.

According to court filings and statements, Lively's legal team claims Baldoni's side used crisis communications strategies designed to influence public perception in a manner similar to the highly publicised Johnny Depp and Amber Heard case, a comparison that has legal and PR experts concerned.

The dispute between the two former It Ends With Us co-stars has been building for months, with both sides filing multiple legal documents ahead of a trial expected to begin in May 2026.

A federal judge has already narrowed the case, allowing Lively's retaliation claims and a breach of contract claim to proceed while dismissing several others, including sexual harassment and defamation allegations.

Depp-Heard Comparison Raises Legal And PR Concerns

According to FOX News, Blake Lively's legal team said in a filing dated April 17 that Justin Baldoni's representatives allegedly hired a crisis PR expert who had previously been connected to the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard legal battle. They argue this may suggest a broader strategy to shape public opinion on the case, rather than just handling routine media communication.

Public relations experts, however, say bringing up the Depp v Heard comparison can be risky. Branding specialist Doug Eldridge explained that early public opinion can change quickly once different sides start telling competing versions of the same story. He said Lively may have initially shaped how people viewed the dispute, but Baldoni's response has since shifted that perception.

He also stressed that serious allegations need strong proof, not just public reaction or headlines, because opinions can change once evidence is properly examined.

The Depp-Heard case, which ended in 2022 with mixed results for both actors, is often used as an example of how celebrity legal disputes can play out in public before a court has fully decided the facts.

'Lively's Decision to Invoke Depp v Heard is Risky'

Blake Lively's legal team's reference to the Depp v Heard case has split opinion among legal experts.

Some say it could hurt their position in court because it may shape public expectations that don't match the evidence presented at trial.

Entertainment lawyer Jordan Matthews called the move 'a huge risk,' pointing out that the Depp-Heard case left a lasting impact on Amber Heard's reputation. He also noted that in high-profile Hollywood disputes, juries can sometimes be influenced by stories they already know before hearing all the facts.

Other lawyers disagree on how important the comparison will be in court. Attorney Trey Lovell said it is unlikely a judge would allow detailed references to the Depp-Heard case to be used as evidence, because the two cases are separate and could unfairly sway a jury.

At the moment, the dispute is moving along two tracks. One is the legal process in court, where claims are being narrowed before trial. The other is outside the courtroom, where both sides are trying to influence public opinion of the case before any verdict is reached.

Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni Prepare For Trial Clash

Both Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni are expected to face each other in court in May 2026, with filings continuing to build on both sides. The case stems from claims related to their work on It Ends With Us, with Lively alleging retaliation and Baldoni disputing key elements of her account.

Judge Lewis J. Liman has already removed several claims from the case, leaving a more limited set of allegations to be examined at trial. That decision has shifted attention to how each side will present its remaining arguments in court.

Legal and PR analysts say the Depp-Heard reference is less about legal proof and more about narrative framing. Crisis communications expert Dave Quast said the comparison only works if used carefully, to explain how public opinion can form during litigation rather than as a direct analogy.

He warned that relying too heavily on the Depp-Heard comparison could turn a complicated legal case into a messy celebrity story in the public mind. He added that courts are unlikely to accept arguments framed in that way, since judges and juries are expected to focus on evidence rather than public narratives.