We will post a tutorial on how to use CourtListener.com when we also learn how to fully use it. You can create a free account to get access. Also remember you can click “DESC” to have all the filings pull up from latest to oldest. Also you can turn on notifications for each of the cases via the little bell at the top. For now we’ve linked all the cases we could find and our POV on each. It is all alleged according to our heart.
BL v. Wayfarer Studios LLC
This is the main active case. Most updates and activity will be through this main case. JW has now been dismissed twice and he is no longer part of this case.
Court Listener Case
Wayfarer Studios LLC v. BL
This is JB’s case that was dismissed (unfortunately) by JL due to not meeting the legal standards for the claims. The bar for defamation is high for public figures. However from this, we got a lot of documentation. Including the timeline of relevant events. Check out: TheLawsuitInfo.com
Court Listener Case
Vanzan v. Does 1-10
This is the alleged SHAM lawsuit that BL filed to allegedly circumvent due process and lack of notice to those whose info she was seeking to get. BL allegedly gave SJ this sham subpoena to SJ. SJ did not quash she just handed everything over, seemingly in coordination. Also SJ was not included in BL’s lawsuit. BL alleges everyone should have known who was going to be sued now, but this lawsuit she filed with no names, just Does 1-10.
Wallace v BL
BL didn’t include Wallace in the first lawsuit in NY (now JW has been dismissed twice) but the NYT allegedly included him and it defamed JW, as he is a private fellow so JW sued her first in TX. Now this case has also been dismissed from TX as well because TX judge said he does not have jurisdiction over BL. So they’re even… or are they? We’ll have to wait and see if BL files in CA, which is most people’s guess.
Court Listener Case
Jones v. Abel
SJ/ Jonesworks is suing JA, a former employee, even though SJ stole all her phone and info and kept access to JA’s icloud until Jan 2025 allegedly. But also we do know this because BL has all of JA private information. She seems like a great boss, how can anyone say otherwise? (insert upside down emoji or melting emoji – either one would work)
Court Listener Case
NYT v. WP
NYT wants to sue WP for $150,000 in the latest anti-slap lawsuit. WP has filed their answers and affirmative defenses and they include a claim of NYT acting with unclean hands.
Harco National Insurance Co v. Wayfarer
Harco is a duty-to-defend policy and they allege they are not responsible to Wayfarer because they were not informed of the HR Complaint when they signed on to the policy in July 2023, however we have not seen BL’s HR complaint that pre-dates the policy.
Court Listener Case
BL v Everyone (Allegedly)
These are hard to find but will post all possible. Please make sure to read foot note disclaimers. IMO = In my opinion
01
IMO: BL & RR use Vanzan to file sham lawsuit. They then send subpoena to SJ but didn’t name anyone, not even SJ or Joneswork, they did it this way to be able to give SJ a subpoena that she would not fight and hand over ONE phone. The phone was JA stolen phone. BL extracted all info from that company, business AND personal. Then dropped the sham lawsuit days later. These messages are the basis for the lawsuit.
02
BL v 107 Content Creators
IMO: This was BL’s back channel way to get a lot of personal information from 107 creators via Google (for Youtube) and Tiktok. A few creators fought back and a few got withdrawn by BL legal team after some resistance (like 16 or so). Going to speculate the rest went through. Sorry no links but you can find all the motions to quash from about 16 or 17 content creators in the main case.
03
IMO: This was the case classified as a miscellaneous matter, usually means something simple, administrative or uncontested. But on July 28, 2025, the case became contested, meaning it came into a real legal dispute and converted into a full civil lawsuit. See the next box, #04, where it picks up and the case assigned to the Judge Boulware.
04
BL v Perez Hilton (Nevada)
IMO: BL really tried but after 3 months of fighting all on his own he finally got represented by the ACLU of Nevada and low and behold BL team withdrew. Sorry no links but wanted to share but you can follow Perez Hilton on tiktok or insta or his Podcast for the full tea.
05
BL v Skyline Agency (TX)
IMO: JB’s legal team set up a website after the lawsuit and BL wanted asked JL to compel and shorten turn around time for info and move this to JL court. Outcome is believed to be granted in part.
06
BL v Skyline Agency (NY)
IMO: JB’s legal team set up a website after the lawsuit and BL wanted asked JL to compel and shorten turn around time for info and move this to JL court. Outcome is believed to be granted in part.
07
IMO: BF law firm hired an investigative firm as an attorney typically does in a cases this size and BL asked the court to bypass the atty client privilege/ work product and get info. Outcome: Not granted (finally)
08
IMO: BL wants a lot of discovery of these Wayfarer employees, including their personal phones. She seems not to care about privacy concerns, seems like an overreach but we’ll see what the outcome is.
09
IMO: Popcorn Planet filed a motion to quash the subpoena received by BL. His motion to quash was denied. He has filed an appeal. Follow Popcorn Planet on Youtube for more info.
10
IMO: This is a bit unhinged to go after a law firm that represents the party you may be smearing for representing that party arduously and due to that you believe they are smearing you so BL goes after the law firm records. Outcome: was denied in part, granted in part.
Jones v Does
Please make sure to read foot note disclaimers.
01
SJ wanted the court to force Meta & Pinterest to reveal who was behind the anonymous social-media accounts that were attacking her online. She argued that the posts were defamatory, that she was a private person—not a public figure—and that she couldn’t prove the posters’ intent without first knowing their identities. Meta & Pinterest pushed back, saying the anonymous users were protected by the 1st Amendment. The judge agreed that anonymous speech has protection, but ruled that SJ had shown enough evidence of defamation to justify unmasking the accounts. As a result, the court ordered Meta and Pinterest to turn over identifying information about the anonymous posters, except for one unnecessary request for Pinterest’s user agreement.