Is astroturfing illegal? PR takeaways from the ‘It End With Us’ lawsuits

If you’ve found yourself spiraling down the rabbit hole of the ongoing It Ends With Us legal drama, you’ve likely come across the term “astroturfing.” 

The word, which comes from the name for synthetic grass, is defined by Merriam-Webster as an organized activity intended to create a false impression of a widespread, grassroots movement in support of or in opposition of something, but that is in reality initiated and controlled by a concealed group or organization. 

According to the film’s lead actors’ PR camps, some version of the tactic has allegedly been implemented against both Blake Lively and director Justin Baldoni by their respective teams in the lead up to the release of It Ends With Us last August. 

Yet, entertainment publicists say they hadn’t even heard of “astroturfing” until The New York Times reported on Lively’s initial legal complaint against Baldoni and his publicists, crisis management expert and The Agency Group founder Melissa Nathan and publicist Jennifer Abel, founder of RWA Communications and a former partner at Jonesworks, in late December. 

“Astroturfing and any type of calculated deception is much different than earned media,” crisis PR professional Molly McPherson says, calling the increase in media attention around the term and the PR professionals behind the actors a “perception problem” for the industry. 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Molly McPherson (@molly.mcpherson)

McPherson, who shares her expertise and insights on PR crises on social media, says she associates astroturfing with untraceable, calculated deception for the purpose of warping public perception around genuine grassroots support. She felt the term used in the context of Lively and Baldoni’s respective cases was a little “misplaced.”

In the 80-page lawsuit against Baldoni, Lively and her team allege that he and his PR team, as well as Wayfarer Studios, the production company behind the movie, initiated a “smear campaign” against her in the lead up to the movie’s premiere that damaged her reputation. 

“Millions of people (including many reporters and influencers) who saw these planted stories, social media posts and other online content had no idea they were unwitting consumers of a crisis PR, astroturfing and digital retaliation campaign created and funded by Mr. Baldoni and Wayfarer to hurt Ms. Lively,” the complaint states. “That is precisely the goal of an astroturfing campaign — to light the fire and continue to stoke conversations secretly, blurring the line between authentic and manufactured content, and creating viral public takedowns.”

Baldoni filed a $250 million lawsuit against The New York Times for alleged libel and false light invasion of privacy for its story on Lively’s legal complaint. 

Lively’s lawyer reiterated their accusation in a statement Tuesday, noting the team will prove in litigation that Wayfarer and its associates engaged in “unlawful, retaliatory astroturfing” against Lively for “simply trying to protect herself and others on a film set.” 

The actual legality of astroturfing as a practice though isn’t so concrete.

Michael Lasky, partner and chair of Davis+Gilbert’s PR law practice, describes the tactic as something that’s fake that appears real, but noted the logistics around what can be deemed unlawful is determined by the information being disseminated. 

“Astroturfing itself is not embodied in any law as such, but the term has come up as a way to connote something that appears to be genuine when it’s not,” he says. “The court will look at the actual disseminations and see whether they were accurate and statements of fact. They’re only actionable if they are untrue.”

In Lively’s legal complaint, her team alleges that the “carefully, coordinated and resourced retaliatory scheme to silence her, and others, from speaking out about the hostile environment” created by Baldoni and Wayfarer was not only “unconscious and a breach of contract,” but also “illegal under both federal and state law.”

Because there are no laws specific to astroturfing, the case will likely reference libel and defamation laws, says Lasky. He also cites Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission, which prohibits unfair or deceptive business practices and unfair methods of competition. 

The real question, he says, is whether the allegations by Lively and Baldoni were presented as objective facts or opinions and if the indemnification provisions were broad enough that both client and agency approved what was disseminated. 

“We’re now seeing not just Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively being put on legal notice, [but] also the profession of public relations being put on notice,” McPherson says. “The tactics going back and forth are primarily publicists working on behalf of their client, pitching negative stories. They’re being picked up and it doesn’t matter if it’s from a Daily Mail or New York Times or People Magazine — it’s the same practice from both sides.” 

When clients find themselves in the middle of a PR storm, their knee-jerk reaction is often to look to legal means to right their reputation, according to McPherson’s experience with her own clients. But, she warned, many practitioners know that engaging in any type of lawsuit is difficult when it comes to libel and defamation. 

Claims from Lively and Baldoni’s camps, as well as Jonesworks founder Stephanie Jones, who also filed a lawsuit against Baldoni and his team, have included various descriptors of the alleged tacts used against one another including a “no-holds barred strategy,” “smear campaign” and “digital retaliation campaign.” 

Placing stories for a client amid a crisis, either personally or professionally, to boost their reputation isn’t uncommon, especially in the entertainment industry. But the ethical line of astroturfing being alleged in this case is abnormal, according to an entertainment PR executive who did not want to be named, particularly because any form of a smear campaign, from their understanding, started after the official legal filings. 

“I don’t know why the word [astroturfing] is resonating so much. I think because it’s a new word,” the executive says. “Smear campaigns have been around since the dawn of time, particularly with any high-profile stories. There are bad stories, but to this degree of a breach of leaking texts and however those texts were obtained — that’s a whole other level.” 

The specific language being used to describe the tactics is less important, Lasky says, harping on the fact that it only matters if the publicists on either side, in their pursuit of earned coverage for their client, were deceptive in their attempts by not disclosing a material fact that would alter the credibility of that piece of information. 

“If someone is honestly stating a fact and making that known publicly, is that a smear campaign, or is that simply getting the truth more widely disseminated?” Lasky says. “In public relations, oftentimes, the statement at issue is not facially false because of what it says, but sometimes the error is not one of commission but of omission.”

For instance, if a server gave a review of the restaurant where they worked, it could be construed that their opinion was biased and misleading to the consumer if they weren’t aware of the reviewer’s connection to the establishment. 

Crossing the ethical line into an area that could be deemed astroturfing is a decision that’s made by the practitioner themselves, no matter if the request came directly from the client, the PR executive says. 

“This [case] has certainly opened up the hood of the dark side of the business, but this is atypical. It’s not the norm,” the exec says, cautioning that PR professionals who have gotten lax with their communication modalities need to be cognizant of what they put in writing in texts and on applications such as WhatsApp. 

Lively and Baldoni’s reps have both made clear they intend to bring their legal pursuits to trial. Baldoni and his team shared their intentions to pursue legal action against Lively herself as well. 

While the virality of the case has some online users questioning the nature of PR in Hollywood, the repercussions of a potential legal decision could alter the industry, McPherson says. 

“This is a legal case about PR and about PR tactics. If there are legal decisions made based on public relations strategy, that’s going to affect how people use public relations in the future,” she says. “When Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni continue on with their careers and make more movies and television programs, the PR industry is going to be left holding the bag.”

McPherson adds that entertainment publicists are going to wonder when they are pitching a campaign or trying to clean up a crisis for their clients. 

“Are they going to put themselves in legal jeopardy simply for doing public relations in an ethical manner?” she says. 

Lasky, on the other hand, doesn’t know that this one situation will change PR so drastically. He does encourage practitioners to be aware of what they’re disseminating and the proof they have to support it in order to avoid legal claim or reduce legal risk.

The lawsuits will continue to play out in the media, the entertainment PR executive says, and it’s going to be ugly. The exec notes the allegations against PR tactics and the practitioners themselves should serve as a “cautionary tale” for entertainment publicists as they navigate crises for their clients moving forward.