(NewsNation) — Buzz on the internet is growing about a “desperate” and “narcissistic” Blake Lively coming after content creators who dared to diss her or question her motives in the Justin Baldoni-Wayfarer lawsuit.

Earlier this month, Google notified a number of content creators that Lively’s attorneys had submitted subpoenas requesting information about their YouTube accounts, including their bank account information.

The subpoenas came just two weeks before Lively’s case against Jed Wallace, Baldoni’s social media guru, was dismissed.

According to People magazine, Lively, 37, had filed a civil rights complaint against Wallace, who runs Texas-based crisis-management firm Street Relations Inc., in December, alleging that Justin Baldoni’s PR team — publicists Melissa Nathan and Jen Abel — hired Wallace to assist in an alleged smear campaign against the actress.

Lively claimed Wallace “weaponized a digital army around the country from New York to Los Angeles to create, seed and promote content that appeared to be authentic on social media platforms and internet chat forums.”

Blake Lively going after content creators

But Lively is doing a scorched-earth campaign against those she thinks Wallace, Baldoni, Nathan or Abel enlisted in their supposed fight against her — apparently unwilling to believe that any criticism is merited.

However, some of those content creators say not only do they not know or have been in contact with anyone on Baldoni’s team, their criticism came about organically due to what they say is Lively’s bizarre behavior during the promotion of “It Ends With Us,” as well as information that Baldoni’s lawyers put out on thelawsuitinfo.com — the website that gives a detailed reaction to Lively’s complaints against Baldoni, with “receipts.”

Some of the content creators are big names, such as Candace Owens and Perez Hilton, but others have smaller, sometimes infinitesimal audiences that aren’t monetized.

McKenzie Folks’ “Existing to Thrive” has 2,000 subscribers on YouTube, 2,000 followers on Instagram and 10,000 followers on TikTok — on which she asked, “Why am I here (in the subpoena)?” The Daily Mail and US Weekly reported Lively later dropped the subpoena.

Linet Keshishian who runs @sweetandsaltylin on TikTok, Insta and YouTube told me: “I was one of the first 16 content creators she subpoenaed via google because of our YouTube channels. My YouTube at the time had less than 1000 subscribers, such a small following. And for that she was trying to get my bank info and address.”

Keshishian points out in several posts that Baldoni’s case against Lively’s husband, Ryan Reynolds, was thrown out because you can’t sue for hurt feelings.

“So why is Big Bird Blake coming after us? Whose feelings are hurt?” Lin asks.

The move to subpoena creators’ bank accounts is deeply disturbing on many levels — not only because it could be seen as a bully tactic that suppresses the public’s right to free speech, but also because it could be seen as corporations bowing to a celebrity’s demands.

Bank account info among records subpoenaed by Blake Lively’s team

Katie Paulson, an independent journalist who runs the monetized larger account @withoutacrystalball, which has 160,000 followers on Instagram and 441,000 subscribers on YouTube, said having her bank account records subpoenaed was crazy.

“Is (Lively) delusional? Is (Lively) crazy?” she asked.

“I think (Lively) can’t accept the public backlash because it would mean her marketing plan and her cut of the film failed to meet audience expectations and would render her a failure,” she said. “Narcissists can’t handle failure and will do anything to protect their egos.”

Paulson knows a lot about narcissists — she broke the story about Robert Shinn, who led the so-called “TikTok Cult” — and was a consultant on Netflix’s docuseries about Shinn, “Dancing for the Devil: The 7M TikTok Cult.”

Paulson, who lives in a small town in Minnesota, was late to the Lively-Baldoni story but later broke the news that Lively’s team had subpoenaed Stephanie Jones’ phone records via a so-called “shell” company, Vanzan Inc., months before Lively’s team filed a complaint against Baldoni — coverage of which simultaneously appeared in the New York Times.

Paulson, a sexual violence survivor, claims she was neutral at the start, but questions popped up when Baldoni’s team released video and audio footage of a dancing scene in the movie, in which Lively claims she was sexually harassed.

“That wasn’t harassment (to me),” Paulson said. But she says she was gobsmacked by how Lively used her alcohol brand, Betty Booze, to promote the movie.

“She named drinks after characters in the movie — including Justin’s character — at the premiere using her booze. And I was like, ‘Why are you making a drink named after an abuser? This is weird.’ And I was like, ‘Does she know that, like, 40, 50% of calls that involve domestic violence also involve alcohol?’ It was just tasteless,” she said.

Content creators in Blake Lively’s crosshairs

This month, Paulson received a subpoena alert from Google.

“Demanding our bank account information and providing no evidence is a huge invasion of privacy,” she said. “There’s nothing in the subpoena that wants any information about any specific video. She’s basically fishing at this point.”

“I’ve covered a lot of narcissists in my career,” Paulson exclusively told me. “And it’s fair to say that I’m not a doctor, but I would think that there was something, a severe sort of personality disorder, going on here. Whether it’s Blake or Ryan or combined, I think it’s both. Some people can’t accept that people don’t like them.

“(Lively) won’t identify any videos or any inflammatory content or false statements I’ve made. What her attorney did tell (Paulsen’s attorney) is ‘You’re part of this untraceable smear campaign, and Justin Baldoni is paying you,’” Paulson said.

Noting that she expects to pay up to $10,000 in legal fees, she added, “That’s not true.”

“[The content creators] are just offering their opinions like anyone else has the right to do,” attorney John Genga, who represents entertainment journalist Kjersti Flaa, who reportedly also got a Google notice, told Variety.

Flaa created furor when she posted a video titled “The Blake Lively interview That made Me Want to Quit My Job.”

“We think it’s invasive,” Genga said. “It’s designed to intimidate these people, many of whom don’t have the means to fight it.”

“This case has escalated to being about so much more than it was originally,” Flaa told the outlet. “Now it’s about freedom of speech on the internet.”

According to that report, a Lively spokesperson said subpoenas are an evidence-gathering tool, not an accusation of wrongdoing.

Lively’s attorney Esra Hudson didn’t return our emails asking for comment.

Welcome to “The Scoop” — the ultimate back-to-the-office water cooler cheat sheet, your go-to source for all things everyone really wants to know! Get the latest on everything from the political swamp maneuvering in D.C. and Hollywood drama to jaw-dropping small-town shenanigans from Paula Froelich. Subscribe to her newsletter here.