Blake Lively’s claims of ‘digital violence’ sparks fury from YouTubers she subpoenaed for their bank records – who say actress ‘terrorized them and threatened their livelihoods’

Blake Lively has been blasted for ‘hypocrisy’ over her self-pitying post lamenting ‘digital violence’ after suffering a major legal setback in her court battle against Justin Baldoni. 

Just one day after a New York judge threw out the majority of her sexual harassment claims, the actress took to Instagram to describe her ‘physical pain’ – only to spark fury among YouTubers she had previously targeted with subpoenas after they publicly commented on the case.

Now, those caught in the legal drama are clapping back at her remarks, with one creator telling the Daily Mail it ‘feels like Lively is gaslighting everybody’ and ‘refuses to look in the mirror.’ 

The latest court decision means the case will head to trial on May 18 focusing solely on the three remaining counts related to an alleged smear campaign by Baldoni’s team.  

‘The last thing I wanted in my life was a lawsuit, but I brought this case because of the pervasive RETALIATION I faced, and continue to, for privately and professionally asking for a safe working environment for myself and others,’ Lively wrote in a lengthy statement. 

‘Don’t be distracted by the digital soap opera. The constant packaging of this lawsuit as a ‘Celebrity Drama’ is not only irresponsible, but it is by design: to keep you from seeing yourselves in my story,’ she added.  

Lively issued a lengthy statement on Instagram addressing her ‘physical pain from digital violence’ after a judge issued a devastating blow to her case 

‘The physical pain from digital violence is very real. It is abuse. And it’s everywhere, not just in the news but in your communities and schools.’ 

However, the words have left a bitter taste for the 107 social media influencers and commentators who were dragged into the dispute last year when Lively issued subpoenas demanding access to their private data, including bank and credit card details, addresses and phone numbers.

Among those reportedly targeted were conservative firebrand Candace Owens, celebrity gossip hound Perez Hilton – and even smaller creators with just a few hundred followers and without resources to fight the Hollywood star. 

Most of the demands are now understood to have been dropped, although some influencers say they have had legal bills of up to $15,000 to bat them away.

Lauren Neidigh has 31,000 followers for YouTube channel The Court of Random Opinion.

She sought a protective order against Lively claiming harassment and intimidation after being hit with the subpoena.

Lauren Neidigh, who runs YouTube channel The Court of Random Opinion, says she was subpoenaed by Lively’s lawyers who demanded access to her personal information 

Her day job is helping psychology patients get health insurance claims paid from her base near Jacksonville, Florida – and admits money can be a struggle.

Yet she successfully got Lively’s lawyers to back down in her case and dismissed the star’s latest Instagram post as ‘crazy’.

Neidigh, 33, said: ‘It’s infuriating she has put out this bizarre, disingenuous statement trying to champion herself as an advocate against digital violence and abuse.

‘It’s as if she didn’t terrorize innocent women by threatening their privacy because she didn’t like what they said on the internet.

‘She tried to drag a lot of smaller creators into court who couldn’t afford to be there.

‘And that threatened a lot of people’s livelihoods, their finances, their privacy. That’s especially true of people who don’t show their faces on their channels. People were being targeted, they were being pointed out.

YouTuber Andy Signore – who was subpoenaed three times – has blasted Blake Lively’s ‘digital violence’ claims as ‘hypocrisy’

‘It’s weird that she’s going after all of her critics like this and refusing to acknowledge the things she’s being criticized for. And then blame it on everyone else.

‘She has had the privilege of systems upholding her status for pretty much all her life. And it’s ridiculous that she can use them to try to hurt other people.’

Neidigh continued: ‘I fought back myself. But some people had to pay between $10,000 and $15,000. I had to learn how to file in federal court myself, staying up in the middle of the night because I have to work.

‘Her attorneys withdrew pretty much at the sign of resistance. They didn’t want to tell me why they wanted my information. Why did they need my credit card number?

‘I had to decide, do I want to fight this myself and risk her getting this information? Or do I want to take out a loan to get an attorney and take extra shifts to pay for that? 

‘In the end, I just couldn’t pay for an attorney so I had to figure it out for myself.’

Neidigh previously told the Daily Mail she believed the subpoena was sent because Lively thought Baldoni was paying content creators to smear the actress.

‘Maybe she thinks it’ll show people were paid or benefitting in some way to cover her case, because she says the smear campaign is ongoing,’ she said.

‘That’s absolutely not true. I used to really like her movies, and I watched Gossip Girl, of course. So, I had an open mind when I started looking into all of this.

‘But when I read through, I thought some of the stuff doesn’t even make sense. And then I started to put the pieces together when I read the pieces after that.

‘So, there’s never been an incentive for me other than I’m interested in her lawsuit.’

Lively also claimed the ‘digital warfare’ often isn’t directed at celebs or those ‘who may be able to speak up… pay attention to all the ways we can be manipulated online. If you have kids on phones, they are some of the most vulnerable’.

Conservative firebrand Candace Owens – who has also commented on the case – addressed reports that she had been subpoenaed last summer, accusing Lively’s team of ‘leaking’ the story to TMZ 

Baldoni and Lively co-starred as love interests in 2024 film It Ends With Us

Andy Signore, had his Popcorned Planet YouTube channel hit by three Lively subpoenas and is still fighting in the courts.

Of the star’s statement, he said: ‘It just feels like she’s gaslighting everybody. This has always been a battle about her ego, not about anything else in my opinion.

‘This idea that she isn’t one of the main authors of the digital soap opera is ludicrous. It’s hypocrisy. 

‘To say she hasn’t been an orchestrator behind the scenes of her own digital smear campaign is laughable.

‘TMZ knew about my own subpoena before I did. I don’t think it was Justin’s team that alerted them.

‘We were part of the Google subpoena. But she subpoenaed us directly as well, along with the TikTok one. 

‘She sent three various subpoenas to Popcorned Planet, me, and my company. She’s been trying to intimidate creators since day one.’

The latest court decision means the case will head to trial on May 18, focusing solely on the three remaining counts related to an alleged smear campaign by Baldoni’s team. Baldoni is seen departing the federal courthouse in Manhattan in February

Signore, who has nearly one million subscribers, added: ‘And the way she’s using scare tactics about children and women all at risk of a digital manipulation campaign, I find incredibly manipulative herself. She refuses to look in the mirror.’

Lively’s court blow in the Southern District of New York followed Baldoni’s $400 million counter claim against the actress, her husband Ryan Reynolds and others being thrown out in June 2025.

In the latest ruling, Judge Lewis Liman disagreed that Baldoni crossed the boundaries during filming of a dance scene when he added unscripted kisses.

In the 2024 film Lively played florist Lily Bloom who gets into an abusive relationship with Baldoni, who played neurosurgeon Ryle Kincaid.

Judge Liman wrote: ‘Creative artists, no less than comedy room writers, must have some amount of space to experiment within the bounds of an agreed script without fear of being held liable for sexual harassment’.

Nor did Baldoni ‘fat shame’ Lively when he asked her personal trainer about her weight, the judge said.

In a statement to the Daily Mail, Lively’s attorney Sigrid McCawley said the actress ‘looks forward to testifying at trial’

‘The physical appearance of the protagonists was part of the product that the producers were intending to offer the audience’, he wrote.

Lively herself recognized that achieving a ‘certain aesthetic’ was ‘part of the job that we both excitedly signed up for.’

Many of Lively’s claims were dismissed because she did not sign a legal document, known as the Actor Loanout Agreement, which would have governed sexual harassment.

In addition, Lively had so much control over the film that she did not qualify as an employee, so could not sue under the laws she cited, the judge found.

But in a win for Lively, Judge Liman did find that there was enough evidence of a retaliation campaign for a jury to decide whether it took place.

The remaining claims that will go to trial are breach of contract, retaliation and aiding and abetting retaliation. Baldoni denies them all.

A bid to end the war in behind-closed-doors hearings three days after the judge’s ruling failed. However more talks could happen.

In a statement after the judge’s decision last week, Baldoni’s lawyers Alexandra Shapiro and Jonathan Bach said they were ‘very pleased’ with the ruling.

Sigrid McCawley, a member of Lively’s legal team, told the Daily Mail: ‘This case has always been and will remain focused on the devastating retaliation and the extraordinary steps the defendants took to destroy Blake Lively’s reputation because she stood up for safety on the set and that is the case that is going to trial’.

Lively ‘looks forward to testifying at trial,’ McCawley added.