I’ll do my best to keep a running tab on this. I know this is helpful to some. Please read website disclaimers, key takeaways are: 1) we’re not attorneys, 2) this is not intended to be a legal analysis or legal advice, and 3) or entertainment purposes only. But please read the full one below. Okay in addition…. The summary prepared this page with the help of ai.
You will see a summary of NYT complaint per paragraph, when you click the plus sign it will provide Wayfarer’s (WF) reply.
1. NYT: Wayfarer filed a baseless lawsuit; NYT wants fees under Anti-SLAPP law.
WF: Denied; claims it’s a legal conclusion. Refers to the Complaint itself.
2. NYT: SLAPP suits silence free speech and harass publishers.
WF: Denied; says it’s a legal conclusion and refers to statute.
3. NYT: NY’s expanded anti-SLAPP law protects against frivolous suits like Wayfarer’s.
WF: Denied; refers to statute.
4. NYT: NY’s anti-SLAPP statute protects speech in the public interest—even broadly defined.
WF: Denied; legal conclusion. Refers to statute.
5. NYT: News coverage of public issues is protected under the law.
WF: Denied; legal conclusion.
6. NYT: It is now well-established that news coverage of matters of public interest fall within the scope of the law.
WF: Denied; WP says this is a legal conclusion and the statute speaks for itself.
7. NYT: NYT is a New York corporation headquartered in Manhattan.
WF: Admitted in part; denied in part.
8. NYT: Wayfarer is a Delaware LLC with its principal place of business in Los Angeles.
WF: Wayfarer admits the allegations in paragraph 8.
9. NYT: NY courts have jurisdiction because Wayfarer commenced/continued a SLAPP suit.
WF: Legal conclusion; denied.
10. NYT: Venue is proper in NYC because NYT’s HQ is there and the SLAPP conduct occurred there.
WF: Legal conclusion; denied.
11. NYT: NYT published the article/video on Dec 21, 2024; relied on BL’s CRD complaint.
WF: Denied, except admits publication + CRD complaint filing.
12. NYT: Wayfarer sued NYT on Dec 31, 2024 in CA state court for defamation
WF: Admits the allegations in this paragraph
13. NYT: Wayfarer filed the motion naming NYT in SDNY.
WF: Admits the allegations in this paragraph
14. NYT: Wayfarer filed their own suit on Jan 16, 2025; consolidated later.
WF: Denied except admits lawsuit was filed and later consolidated.
15. NYT: Amended Complaint was filed Jan 31, 2025.
WF: Denied except admits Amended Compliant was filed.
16. NYT: Wayfarer asserted four causes of action.
WF: Denied, except refers to Amended Compliant
17. NYT: NYT explains that Wayfarer’s defamation claim was based on the Times’ reporting about Blake Lively’s CRD filing and the online reactions to it, which Wayfarer claimed damaged its reputation. NYT says the Court rejected this claim because the reporting was based on public filings and not defamatory as a matter of law.
WF: Denied; refers to Amended Complaint.
18. NYT: Details their false light claim. NYT states that Wayfarer’s “false light” claim also failed because New York law does not recognize false light as a valid cause of action. The Court dismissed it outright for that reason.
WF: Denied; refers to Amended Complaint.
19. NYT: Details breach of contract and fraud claims: NYT explains that Wayfarer’s remaining claims—promissory fraud and breach of the implied covenant of good faith—were dismissed because Wayfarer failed to plead essential elements and the Court found no factual or legal basis to support them.
WF: Denied; refers to Amended Complaint.
20. NYT: NYT moved to dismiss on Feb 28, 2025.
WF: Admitted
21. NYT: District Court dismissed all claims with prejudice on June 9, 2025.
WF: Admitted
22. NYT: District Court held NY law applied to defamation claims.
WF: Denied, refers to Opinion
23. NYT: Court dismissed defamation claim for multiple reasons.
WF: Denied, refers to Opinion
24. NYT List Reasons why they say their case was dismissed: First – The defamation claim failed. The judge ruled that NYT’s reporting about BL’s CRD complaint was protected and not defamatory as a matter of law, and even the portions of the NYT article that referenced or summarized text messages (including ones not printed in full) did not meet the legal standard for defamation. The court found nothing suggesting NYT acted with actual malice or published anything they knew was false.
WF: Denied, refers to Opinion
25. NYT List Reasons why they say their case was dismissed: Second – WP had included a “false light” claim in their earlier lawsuit, but New York does not recognize false light as a legal cause of action. The judge dismissed it immediately for that reason alone — meaning the claim legally cannot exist in New York.
WF: Denied, refers to Opinion
26. NYT List Reasons why they say their case was dismissed: Finally – The District Court discussed the promisory fruad or breach of implied contract claims, held the claim was legally insufficient and had to be dismissed.
WF: Denied; refers to Opinion.
27. NYT: NYT spent $150,000 defending the baseless case.
WF: Denied the “baseless” claim; no knowledge on $$ amount.
28. NYT: NYT reincorporates all prior paragraphs.
WF: WP reincorporates prior responses.
29. NYT: Anti-SLAPP law requires fee-shifting when suit lacked substantial basis in fact or law.
WF: Legal conclusion; denied.
30. NYT: The prior lawsuit was a SLAPP because NYT’s reporting was public-interest speech.
WF: Legal conclusion; denied.
31. NYT: District Court opinion makes clear Wayfarer commenced and continued the lawsuit without factual or legal basis.
WF: Denied; Opinion speaks for itself.
32. NYT: Under Anti-SLAPP, NYT is entitled to its costs/fees and compensatory damages.
WF: Denied; damages not recoverable because suit wasn’t SLAPP.
33. NYT: By law, Wayfarer is jointly and severally liable for all damages.
WF: Denied
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.