Close Menu
    Blake Lively CAUGHT Illegally RECORDING People?!
    Celebrities2026

    Blake Lively CAUGHT Illegally RECORDING People?!



    Blake Lively CAUGHT Illegally RECORDING People?!

    Not only have Blake Lively’s lawyers seemingly just screwed up their own retaliation claims, they just got caught recording illegal audio. The thing they falsely accused me of. Oh, I got to get into this. [Applause] Welcome to Popcorn Planet. I am Andy Signor. As you might recall, Blake Lively’s legal team tried to come after me on the docket for saying I illegally recorded, saying it was a criminal act that I recorded their phone call when I clearly said I was on a recorded line and I clearly said I was asking for on the record comment. Uh, but they of course tried to play victim. Well, the irony of all ironies, it turns out Blake Lively has been using illegal audio to cherrypick quotes against the Wayfair parties, cuz of course she is. Uh, this one’s a doozy. I got to get into this and then we’re also going to talk about uh retaliation claims that are falling apart. So, stay tuned for that. But, but first, let’s get to the this is juicy. Uh, on Wednesday, Wayfairer asked uh for evidence submitted by Blake to be unsealed, specifically the audio tape of Steve Sowitz. Now, as you’ll see here in this second paragraph, the materials concern an alleged recording made by the witness of a conversation with defendant Steve Sowitz without his consent. PLF seeks to seal the audio recording in its entirety, although she perpetively quote from it a portion of her inner brief uh in the public unsealed version she filed with the court. Lively boldly claims she placed the substance of the relevant information from exhibit 1 in the public record, flatly ignoring that the person recorded was without his consent. Mr. Sowitz should be allowed to have the entire recording made public to ensure accuracy and provide context. Basically, he’s like, “No, no, no, girl. I You’re going to try to to defame me? Uh, play it all. I’m not asking you to hide that. You don’t get to decide what to protect here. You’re you just tried to expose me by cherrypicking one piece of that audio. Release it all, girl. Let’s hear it all in context. Why are you doing that?” Good question. Good. Good on Steve and the team for finally pushing this back. Uh so they also revealed that the recording was taken without his consent uh writing that regarding regarding the declaration uh plainif seeks to seal information regarding the timing uh of the meeting and the context of the conversation recorded without Sarah’s consent other than the witness’s name and the name and the project the declarant worked on. None of the information reveals identities. So basically the person who recorded it I guess um uh plainif improperly seeks to hide any context for the alleged verbal abuse. why the meeting with Mr. Sarowitch took place, when it took place, and what allegedly happened after the conversation. So apparently, they’re trying to avoid a bunch of context as to why this was even happening. Finally, Plainif does not provide any explanation why exhibit one to the declaration must be sealed other than it would invite additional media coverage, which she is concerned will be adverse to her. However, it is with it is well settled that generalized concerns of adverse publicity and reputational injury are insufficient to justify sealing records. More importantly, Lively herself is responsible for the substantial media coverage resulting from her decision to include alleged quotations from exhibit one audio recording of Mr. Sowitz. Certainly, any privacy interest belongs to Mr. Sowitz, the person who was recorded without his consent. He should be permitted to have the public hear the entire audio recording and not be confined solely to Lively’s flawed and out of context perpetrated transcription of the audio recording. Amen, dude. Amen. Why does she always get to pick and choose what you guys get to see? But then she wants to see everything. That’s why I think a lot of people didn’t want to give her so much information because they’re not going to be honest about the information. They will make it whatever they want to make it. And that’s what’s so messed about this whole case. It’s been such a waste. So disgusting on so many levels. Uh anyway, it it just keeps going. So now we’re learning uh separate topic. Let’s get into part two. Blake Lively appears to be moving the goalpost yet again when it comes to the alleged smear campaign. Now, uh, Lively subpoenaed third parties investigation form, uh, sourced intelligence. This is a joint letter they both, uh, filed here. Okay. Uh, they engaged them by the liner firm for the Wayfair parties. The parties submitted a joint letter pursuant to the court’s September 15th order where the details of the smear campaign appear to have changed again. Both sides argue whether information should be compelled, and reasoning we have seen before, what’s privilege, what’s not, etc. But the timeline aspect is getting the most attention. Uh, page one, second paragraph. Here it is. You’re looking for it here. Miss Lively alleges the defendants Wayfair Studios LLC and certain of its executives, affiliated entities, and public relations professionals, together, the Wayfair parties, engaged in a retaliatory online smear campaign that began during filming and promotion of the film. It ends with us and continues to this day. Now, uh, Little Girl attorney, who I’m a fan of. I would love to have you on. Uh, I I saw her over on Elsie’s channel. I I want to I want to full shout out and preps to her. I want her to explain a little bit of this weighing in this issue and how this is kind of uh not a good not a good thing for me. Nowhere have we seen them expressly state that the retaliation campaign, the online smear campaign actually happened while filming. That means that the online smear campaign has to date back to 2023 through 2020 early 2024. And by Lively’s own admission, there was no nothing that she could say was harassing that happened on set for the phase two of the filming. Then she must be alleging then that there was retaliation that happened during phase two of the filming. that we haven’t seen any specific allegations of. She specifically says that the round two of shooting went smoothly and there were no problems. That’s from her own uh uh lawsuit. So that’s curious and I wonder how that’s going to play out. The reason I think they’re doing that is because some of us have been talking about how there is a causation issue with the amount of time that has gone by between the allegation of the alleged protected activity, which we’re not 100% sure what she’s alleging is a protected activity. Is it that January 4th meeting? Is it the 17point list that was emailed in November? Is it the 30point list that was orally discussed and the January 4th meeting? What exactly constitutes that alleged protected activity? Great question. In any case, even if you take the latest one, which would have been in January 2024, she has alleged that the online smear campaign started in August or after August of 2024, which in and of itself is about eight months of nothing where she alleges nothing happened, no retaliation happened. mean she hasn’t actually alleged any retaliatory acts that happened between that period of time. Now she’s saying that retaliation began while filming. So are you saying that you raised the complaint in January to the Wayfair parties and then there was retaliation during phase two of the filming when you also alleged that there was no harassment. There were no problems on set. So what was the retaliation that happened during the filming? She has no idea. That’s the problem. She’s never had an idea because there wasn’t any and she’s constantly fishing for it because she’s trying to make one out of thin air if we’re being honest, right? That’s what I really think is happening here. Uh this this is really wild uh that she’s doing. I mean, so really process that because this letter kind of changes things when they when they bring this up 8 months after her alleged protected activity. So yeah, that January 4th meeting or the 17th list of demands, uh, courts want to see retaliation happen pretty soon after the trigger. So eight months, that’s a causation gap that a lawyer could drive a truck through. Uh so this joint letter sort of sort of reveals that in a way this during filming is is really actually her attempting to move the goalposts a total shift dragging the timeline back to 2023 early 2024 right into filming so she can then close the gap and make it easier to argue retaliation later. It’s all a legal tactic. So as little girl comment attorney commented uh you know she’s admitted nothing happened during phase two of filming. So why that’s ridiculous that she did that. Now she’s going to spin and say, “Oh, no, it did happen during filming.” Uh, but that looks like just a pivot to, you know, help the summary judgement, etc., and we keep the moving stories, etc. But it just raises the bigger question now of like if these facts keep changing, how solid was her story in the first place? Like that’s the real reality here, right? All of this is now questionable to me as it always has been I think for a lot of us who are actually following this case as closely as we are. Uh she has just completely bumbled so many things and she has no idea what happened and she’s been trying to find it but she’s found nothing and every time she does she takes it out of context which we’re finding even with the Steve Sowitz audio. So this is what’s so frustrating about it and I do think at some point if they don’t settle it is just going to all fall apart and go away. I do. There’s I don’t believe for a second Blake and Ryan are going to win this. And and the fact that they’ve put Justin through this, all of us through this, content creators, everything. It’s truly shameful. Their egos have exposed them to be people I just can no longer support or even look at. It is entirely frustrating what they’ve done here. Uh and we will continue to cover it as we always do. In fact, the documentaries still happen. Look, I got a team toxic positivity shirt. You can pick that up and so much more over on the website. Make sure you go to popcornplanet.com. Um, that’s where you can get all this information. Uh, our you can also join, sign up there, go to our store. All the options are up at the top. Click, uh, sign up to become a member. Check out the merch store. Pick out our stores. You can also learn more about It Ends With Justice, which is also there. Popcornplanet.com is your hub for it all. So, check it out. Make sure you also make sure you’re subscribed. Hit the subscribe button and hit the bell for alerts as well. Smash the thumbs up for engagement. And yes, please leave a comment. What surprises you more in this? Or does anything surprise you more with Blake Lively these days? I want to hear your thoughts. Thank you guys so much for watching and stay tuned. We got a lot more coming here on Popcorn Planet.

    Blake Lively CAUGHT Illegally RECORDING People?!

    Help Support Our Documentary “It Ends With Justice: Justin Baldoni vs Blake Lively & Ryan Reynolds here: http://ItEndsWithJustice.com
    Watch the Trailer here: https://youtu.be/v2OGwByAIQU?si=8HfJvuD41dNH_St0

    More on the Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds case, it seems there’s a new twist! Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios are also mentioned as the hollywood controversy continues. Check out Popcorned Planet for more, but remember, this is not legal advice, I am not a law firm!

    You can also become a MEMBER or Purchase New Merch here: http://PopcornedPlanet.com – All paid members will be able to see our documentaries first and all funds raised there go toward future productions!

    Thumbnail images are fairuse satire created by adobe photoshop and artificial intelligence artwork.

    S U P P O R T T H I S C H A N N E L:
    Join, Donate, & Follow here: http://PopcornedPlanet.com or here: https://linktr.ee/AndySignore

    Popcorned Planet offers commentary on the biggest Celebrity News, Pop Culture Outrage and Viral Internet Stories from all over the internet. Created and hosted by Andy Signore (as seen on Piers Morgan Uncensored) Popcorned Planet is your one stop place Daily News, Celebrity Gossip, Drama, Hollywood insight and Pop Culture Commentary.

    C O N T A C T / B U S I N E S S : PopcornedPlanetTeam@gmail.com

    Or Send Packages, Toys & Fan Mail To:
    Andy Signore
    16350 Bruce B Downs Blvd
    PO Box # 48742
    Tampa FL, 33647

    Share.
    View 49 Comments

    49 Comments

    2. @ricardohunte3086 on

      I haven't seen your whole post yet as I wanted to say – if some lady has gone to Steve with the sole purpose of recording the conversation without his knowledge permission. It could be argued that the lady was misleading him into saying something. However, if there was only Steve and this other person – Steve would expect to have some kind of expectation of privacy as he's in his own office or home. So therefore whatever was said at that specific time is admissible at court. I also heard today that some states have a one person or two person knowledge of the recording, which I feel is an infringement of a person's privacy and civic rights.

    7. @ricardohunte3086 on

      I made a mistake – I thought Liman was the judge of this legal matter and not Blake Lively as I understand it Blake Lively is an actress not a lawyer or a judge. So how can she have any say with what the court wants to do about an illegally obtained recording? Also if said recording was made with two or more people saying about this or that – how is it relevant to this case of H.R. against Justin as the people speaking in an illegal record ing can't speak to Justin's frame of mind. Why is Blake Lively name connected to illegally obtained items? It seems to be a habit on her part.

    9. @elisaolaya22 on

      You weee the first person that popped in my head when I read this “recording without consent” on Blake’s side🤣. She is an even bigger joke than I thought!! I swear, they are constantly telling on themselves through their own accusations! Thanks Andy!❤️

    10. @user-ldjkmh on

      I think this case is gonna have to be thrown out at some point soon. I so far haven’t heard any evidence to her claims at this point, but we have heard a lot about her and her team’s alleged behaviours and tactics in regard to him and the movie . Maybe she’ll be able to prove something but I don’t think she’s going to. I do however think if jb is innocent and victim to a smear campaign against him and had his position taken over on the movie then he absolutely needs to counter sue.

    13. @ricardohunte3086 on

      On a common sense perspective Justin has Blake Lively trying to take over his film, he's got Ryan Reynolds giving him lots of hassle my question is where would Justin find the time to mount a smear campaign? Justin is the director therefore everything falls on his shoulders.

    15. @abydos93 on

      Popcorn Planet/Andy- you should do an episode that covers all the things BL has accused other in this case of doing that have turned out not to be the case and/or she has actually been the one that did it or did 1st!!

    21. @Mysticsoul1602 on

      Blake and Ryan accused others of doing exactly what they themselves were doing. Their behaviour is unethical and dumb. Who orchestrated the Van sham? Who launched the smear campaign and leaked information to the press? Who acted inappropriately on set?This entire case was planned from the beginning, and now it’s backfired. Karma never misses.

    25. @millerville2000 on

      The thing I was impressed with was how Ellyn did MUCH better with this filing- she gave details and 7 case law, that should make Judge Liman happier. Looking online I think it was Liz Plank who recorded the convo and I am 100% sure that Blake is shady enough to do it all while being vindictive to ruin Steve Sarowitz's character and name for using his money to take her down. All allegedly of course (not a bot and don't want to be subpoenaed 😉 )

    27. @nisrynmokrani on

      Hello, I have been following this case since its inception. I am a bit discouraged so I asked 3 questions to Gemini (Google IA) and the answers are upsetting 😢
      First question and reply:
      "
      Based on publicly available information and news reports about the court filings, there is no definitive evidence to conclude that Judge Lewis J. Liman is biased in the legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni. Judicial bias is a serious legal allegation and is not supported by the facts as reported in the media.
      Here's a breakdown of the judge's key rulings and the context surrounding them:
      * Dismissal of Baldoni's Lawsuits: Judge Liman dismissed Justin Baldoni's $400 million defamation lawsuit against Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds, as well as a separate $250 million suit against the New York Times. The judge's reasoning was based on legal principles, specifically "litigation privilege," which protects statements made as part of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. He found that Lively's claims, made in her civil rights complaint, were legally protected. The judge also concluded that Baldoni had not adequately demonstrated that Lively acted with "actual malice" or that he had suffered substantial damages as a result of her claims.
      * Sealing of Lively's Deposition: The judge ordered Lively's deposition to be sealed and criticized Baldoni's legal team for attaching the entire transcript to a filing. Judge Liman stated that the act of filing the entire, lengthy document was not for a proper legal purpose and appeared to be an attempt to create a public relations spectacle. This decision was based on the court's responsibility to manage the litigation process and prevent the misuse of court filings for public-relations purposes.
      * Denial of Discovery Extension and Taylor Swift Deposition: The judge denied Baldoni's request for an extension of the discovery deadline to depose Taylor Swift, while granting a shorter extension to Lively. The judge's decision was a procedural ruling related to the case's schedule and the legal standard for granting such extensions. The judge did not find Baldoni's reasons for the extension to be compelling, especially since a prior lawsuit that involved Taylor Swift had been dismissed.
      While some reports, particularly from social media personalities and certain news outlets, have raised questions about the judge's rulings and have used terms like "biased," these are not legal findings. The court filings and judge's orders themselves show that the decisions were based on a specific application of legal precedents and procedural rules. A judge's role is to apply the law to the facts presented, and their rulings, even if unfavorable to one party, do not necessarily indicate bias.
      "
      Second question:
      "
      Based on the available facts from court filings and media reports, it is impossible to definitively state whether Blake Lively is "emitting false accusations." The legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni revolves around this very question, with each party presenting a different version of events.
      Here's a breakdown of the key claims and counterclaims:
      Blake Lively's Accusations:
      * Lively's lawsuit alleges that Baldoni engaged in "invasive, unprofessional and sexually inappropriate behavior" on the set of It Ends With Us.
      * Specific claims include allegations of unwanted touching and kissing, entering her trailer uninvited while she was undressed, and discussing his personal sexual experiences and a "previous porn addiction."
      * Lively also alleges that Baldoni and his team launched a "smear campaign" to damage her reputation in retaliation for her complaints.
      Justin Baldoni's Counterclaims:
      * Baldoni has vehemently denied all of Lively's allegations, calling them "categorically false."
      * He filed a defamation lawsuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and others, alleging that Lively used "false sexual harassment claims" and threats to gain creative control over the film.
      * Baldoni's legal team has argued that Lively's allegations were part of a "malicious effort" to take over the production of the film and deflect from her own alleged "missteps" during the press tour.
      Legal and Factual Context:
      * A judge dismissed Baldoni's $400 million defamation lawsuit against Lively. However, this dismissal was based on the legal principle of "litigation privilege," which protects statements made in a legal proceeding. The judge did not make a factual determination on the truthfulness of Lively's accusations.
      * The court has not yet ruled on the merits of Lively's claims. A trial on her allegations against Baldoni is reportedly scheduled for spring 2026.
      * Baldoni's team has presented video and audio footage from the set, arguing that it contradicts some of Lively's specific claims and portrays a more amicable working relationship. Lively's team has disputed the context and relevance of this material.
      * The legal battle is ongoing, with both sides continuing to use court filings and public statements to advance their respective narratives.
      In summary, the question of whether Blake Lively is making false accusations is the central dispute in the case. The court has not yet made a ruling on the factual truth of her claims. Both parties have presented evidence and arguments to support their positions, and the matter will likely be resolved in a future trial or a settlement.
      "
      Third question:
      "
      Predicting the outcome of a court case is impossible, as it depends on a multitude of factors, including the specific evidence presented, witness testimony, and the judge or jury's interpretation of the law. However, we can analyze the situation based on the public facts, court filings, and legal principles that have been applied so far.
      Based on the available information, it appears that Justin Baldoni has faced significant legal setbacks.
      Legal Standing:
      * Baldoni's Lawsuits Dismissed: A federal judge has already dismissed Justin Baldoni's primary lawsuits—the $400 million defamation suit against Blake Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds, and the $250 million suit against The New York Times. The judge's ruling was based on "litigation privilege," a legal principle that protects statements made as part of a judicial proceeding, such as Lively's civil rights complaint. This was a major victory for Lively and a significant hurdle for Baldoni, as it effectively ended his ability to sue her for defamation over her initial claims.
      * Ongoing Legal Battle: While the defamation lawsuits were dismissed, the case is not entirely over. A trial on Blake Lively's original claims of sexual harassment and retaliation against Baldoni is reportedly scheduled for spring 2026. This means the court will still hear and rule on the merits of her accusations.
      "Winning" in the Court of Public Opinion:
      The idea of winning in the "court of public opinion" is a separate and distinct concept from winning a legal case.
      * Public Perception: There's no objective way to measure who is "winning" public opinion. Some people may have been swayed by Baldoni's legal filings, which included detailed claims about Lively's alleged on-set behavior and a perceived attempt to take creative control of the film. His legal team has been vocal in the media, and some news outlets have reported on his side of the story.
      * Media Narratives: The public's perception is heavily influenced by media coverage. Baldoni's team has presented video and audio footage, as well as text messages, that they argue contradict Lively's claims. These have been widely circulated and discussed online. However, Lively's team has consistently framed this as a retaliatory and "abusive" legal campaign, a narrative that was reinforced by the judge's dismissal of Baldoni's lawsuits.
      * Legal vs. Public Opinion: A key point to remember is that a legal victory is based on a strict application of the law and evidence, while public opinion is based on emotion, media narratives, and individual biases. A person can lose a legal case while still having public support, and vice-versa. In this instance, Baldoni has lost the legal battle to sue for defamation, which is a very different kind of fight than the one over Lively's original claims.
      Summary:
      Given the legal dismissals, the "chances for Baldoni to win the court case" are extremely low, as his main lawsuits against Lively and The New York Times have already been thrown out. The remaining legal action is a trial on Lively's original sexual harassment and retaliation claims, in which Baldoni is the defendant. His objective in that trial would be to defend himself and prove her claims are false, not to "win" a separate lawsuit of his own. The "court of public opinion" is a different matter, where both sides have been engaged in a public relations battle, but it has no bearing on the legal outcome.
      "

    28. @nisrynmokrani on

      I noticed that the three questions are missing from my post so here they are:
      1.Based on all the facts surrounding the blake lively and justin baldoni legal battle, including court filings, does judge liman look biased?
      2.Based on the facts used in the blake lively and justin baldoni legal battle, is the actress emitting false accusations?
      3. What are the chances for baldoni to win the court case? It seems that he won the public court opinion.

    29. @mcpeewee68 on

      Hmmmm so "cherry picking" STOLEN items like the texts from Jen Abels phone to the NY times. Doing it again now with an illegal recording and just giving us Blake's narrative from it. Typical

      Blake has no evidence. Every claim is false from SH to retaliation. She & Ryan have been the only ones smearing justin for 2 years now

    30. @MoonlitMind on

      If it was recorded in California, it's illegal, but not in New York, so where was the recording made? I wonder if Steve Sorowitz asks for the tape to be played in its entirety, if that would mean that he's giving up rights to pursue possible charges against her for taping it illegally if it was recorded with him unaware in a state where doing so is illegal?

      BL claiming the smear campaign starting during filming if she is inferring it happened during filming, if she means during the 2nd phase, that would probably mean she is using text messages where it was discussed if BL went public how would they handle the PR. Yet those messages do not show any smear campaign. It's normal for PR to try to get ahead with putting out positive stories, and having them up-posted, irrespective if it was directly through them or another entity. As long as it was just preparing to buffer against negative press by reporting positive stories, there's no smear campaign. It's clear in the text messages, the public organically started asking questions around the time of the premiere and the promos BL did for the film.

    38. @belle.m on

      Blake has a habit of cherry picking evidence. She did it in the beginning with the text messages. Until Justin released the full message thread and we saw what she did. Steve obviously knows what’s in that audio, or he wouldn’t want it released. It’s probably innocent, like the texts. Blake will look really bad when this comes out.

    Leave A Reply