The Utah jury found Gwyneth Paltrow was not at fault for the 2016 ski crash

It is too funny that, on the same evening Donald Trump got indicted, Gwyneth Paltrow was “acquitted” in her ski trial. Trump indicted, Goop innocent! Gwyneth was the defendant in a civil trial over a 2016 ski accident on the bunny slopes of Park City, Utah. Terry Sanderson tried to claim that Gwyneth crashed into him and left him with broken bones and head trauma. Gwyneth said no, Sanderson crashed into me and people did check on him. The jury believed Gwyneth and they awarded her the $1 she was asking for. Vindication!

The jury reached a verdict in the civil trial between Gwyneth Paltrow and Terry Sanderson over a ski collision that happened seven years ago. After less than three hours of deliberations on Thursday, the jury in Park City, Utah, found that Paltrow, 50, was not at fault and that retired optometrist Sanderson, 76, was at fault 100 percent and that it caused the actress harm. The jury awarded her $1.

Over the course of the two-week proceedings, the jury was tasked with determining what Paltrow and Sanderson did before and after the Feb. 26, 2016, incident, who was the downhill skier, and who crashed into whom.

Paltrow says in a statement obtained by PEOPLE, “I felt that acquiescing to a false claim compromised my integrity. I am pleased with the outcome and I appreciate all of the hard work of Judge Holmberg and the jury, and thank them for their thoughtfulness in handling this case.”

Her attorney Stephen Owens adds, “We are pleased with this unanimous outcome and appreciate the judge and jury’s thoughtful handling of the case. Gwyneth has a history of advocating for what she believes in — this situation was no different and she will continue to stand up for what is right.”

Sanderson’s attorney C. Peter Sorensen said in a statement, “We are disappointed in the outcome, but we love and support the legal process. We thank Judge Holmberg, the jury and staff for all their efforts. We will spend the next while evaluating and discussing where we go from here.”

While exiting the courtroom after the verdict was revealed, Paltrow leaned in and briefly whispered to Sanderson before continuing to leave. Sanderson confirmed to Extra that she said, “I wish you well,” and he responded, “Thank you, dear.” He told the outlet that was “very kind of her.”

[From People]

Yeah, Gwyneth leaning over and saying “I wish you well” to the guy who spent years trying to sue her for millions of dollars is… cold as ice. As someone joked, that’s Brentwood-speak for “go f–k yourself.” Anyway, it’s remarkable to see as Gwyneth has come out of this smelling like a rose! In the Gossip with Celebitchy podcast coming out this weekend, I even admitted that I believed her version of events but that doesn’t change the fact that Gwyneth is an objectively terrible person. It’s just in this one particular case, she was not at fault.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

96 Responses to “The Utah jury found Gwyneth Paltrow was not at fault for the 2016 ski crash”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. SarahCS says:

    Yeah, “I wish you well” after all that? Stone cold.

    It’s just a shame that all the other things she stands up for because she believes in them are at best utter nonsense and at worst actively harmful.

    • Southern Fried says:

      Actively harmful, absolutely. Hopefully because of the trial she won’t get many more converts to her unhealthy eating habits.

      • Anneli says:

        I’d be much more concerned about what an average American feeds their children than her diet. She seems to be doing fine. It gets rather boring when people keep attacking the same people (usually women) about absolutely everything they do or say.

      • May Bench says:

        Does she clink when she walks with the jade eggs shoved up you know where?

    • VoominVava says:

      I think on the surface, it is a really good thing to say… and she didn’t have to address him at all. I also think “I wish you well” is the new “bless your heart” lol

  2. sunny says:

    Good for Gwyneth! I am team Paltrow here- she sounded believable and I totally believe she would have settled and avoided the trail and an attention if she was at fault. Really the fact that she was willing to let this go to trial should have been everybody’s hint that she was telling the truth because beyond reeking of a “its the principle of the thing” positioning, from a brand and business perspective, she probably would have been reluctant to call attention to this case due to brand risk if she wasn’t in the right.

    I know people hate her but come on! And yes, GP is ice cold.

    • CallyForbes says:

      Agreed. But I don’t get why some people hate her. She may have some eccentric ideas about wellness and lifestyle, but she’s not forcing them on anyone. And it’s not the worst thing in the world to promote eating lots of vegetables and bone broth.

      • Danbury says:

        Because she promotes disordered eating and thinks she invented yoga.

      • Emmi says:

        She has promoted some really dangerous ideas and often tries to go a step further than “wellness” by using doctors (or people who call themselves doctors) to sell certain “cures”. She promotes these things as fact and that’s dangerous.

      • Tacky says:

        She actively promotes disordered eating as “wellness” while pushing junk science that is actually harmful. Not to mention she is an insufferable snob.

      • CallyForbes says:

        But didn’t she say in the infamous interview that she favours a ‘paleo diet that includes lots of vegetables’? She did not say that she was eating vegetables exclusively. And even if she is a vegetarian or a vegan that is not considered to be disordered eating is it?

      • Tacky says:

        @callyforbes, apparently you are not aware of Goop’s long history of giving women terrible and harmful advice. There are literally websites dedicated to debunking her advice about sticking all manner of things up your who ha.

      • sparrow says:

        Sunny. I am pleased by the verdict, too, and thought she was honest and gracious. Apparently, there are rumours the IV story was released to keep attention away from the trial. I have serious objections to her vaginal cleansing products, which at least one prominent American gynaecologist has said are not only offensively needless but potentially dangerous. (I’m sorry, I don’t have the medic’s name to hand.) However, not liking someone doesn’t mean I believe she shouldn’t have the right to defend her character in the circs of that day. I was impressed by her.

      • Mallory says:

        Internalized misogyny. Women are conditioned to compete with each other & put down the ones they think are on a hierarchy above them. Not unlike men, but we do it by killing their reputation. Still waiting to hear what horrific things Goop has done in her life, but seems like speaking up for what she personally likes is enough for a lot of women. Maybe they should try yoga instead?

      • Jenn says:

        I will say that, as conflicted as I am about GP, I can’t seem to work up much anger toward her. Yes, she espouses health interventions that vary from seriously dangerous to merely whackadoo, but she seems more like a symptom of a societal problem than the cause. People — women — usually want to believe in the snake oil after their health caregivers have already failed them. Racism, sizeism, misogyny, and ageism delay diagnoses and kill people, so if a frantic ailing rich lady wants to cleanse her colon and put a jade egg in her butt because at least that way she can feel some sort of agency and autonomy over her own deteriorating body, who am I to stop her.

      • Gah says:

        She legit told the Front t desk girl at a Soho yoga studio, “you have a job because of me.”

    • Ameerah M says:

      Exactly and agreed to all of this.

    • LB says:

      This is not about hating GP. She actively sells questionable and possibly harmful products to women (jade vaginal eggs, vaginal steams etc). She works with questionable “practitioners” in doing so. She does not fight for what is right. She fights for profit from these questionable products. Goop was fined $145 K in California for making unfounded claims about their products. Please read Ob/Gyn Dr. Jen Gunter, who details these false claims and the potential harms.

      • CallyForbes says:

        The fine was related to unsubstantiated claims made about vaginal eggs related to strengthening the pelvic floor etc and not to any actual harm caused by the eggs themselves. But even if these eggs can cause harm, can they really cause any more harm than any number of devices designed to be inserted into the same place that are sold on many other websites….

      • Mallory says:

        Yeah! It’s disgusting to think women can speak about products that have benefited them & that other women might buy them?! And how dare we peddle products that many women have claimed to be beneficial without the scientific community of men backing it up. Once a man has invented an V egg, it’ll be good for us.

      • Amanda says:

        Then don’t buy what she’s selling or take her advice?!! Easy solution.
        AS IF people hate her because she has bizarre practices that have zero bearing in their lives. Would I steam my vagina? Never, but you do you!!

      • Fabiola says:

        She is not forcing anyone to buy her products or adopt her practices. We all have a brain and should use it. Stop blaming her for other people’s choices. If a diet works for me I share it with my friends but I’m not forcing anyone to try it. It’s called free will.

  3. Orangeowl says:

    Love her or hate her, this guy was a nutcase who wasted a lot of people’s time and money. It’s nice when truth and justice prevails, now let’s hope it finally happens with Trump.

    • sparrow says:

      You’ve condensed exactly how I feel! My partner is a solicitor. He watched brief bits of the suit with me and was continually laughing, eye rolling and shaking his head at Sanderson (and his lawyer). As he said, that kind of free wheeling nutter on the stand is what shreds the nerves of a lawyer.

  4. Alexandria says:

    I can’t stand her but if she’s not at fault, she’s not at fault.

    I wish them both well.

  5. Lola says:

    “Love and support the legal process”

    American lawyers are weird

    • Kitten says:

      Right? “Love”??
      Shit’s so damn weird lol.

    • BeanieBean says:

      That was weird, and I say that as an American! May be it’s a Utah thing?

      • kirk says:

        Before casting aspersions at Utahns (as in nutty religious Republicans), remember Sanderson was complaining about not being able to drink wine. So he’s either non-Mormon or jack-Mormon. Gwyneth, to her credit, was sympathetic to his ills and complimentary to his lawyers.

    • A Fan says:

      I’m not American. But I took it as a larger message to counter those who are very publicly discrediting the rule of law and sowing seeds of distrust in legal systems (and other systems). To show support and belief in the impartiality of the legal system and respect for the decision.

  6. Chaine says:

    I watched a lot of it and I was undecided until the guy himself testified. He admitted he lied about basic things like his own height, and once they showed the pictures of him in the years after the accident doing things like river rafting, and skiing again, and riding a freaking CAMEL, at that point he was toast.

    • ThatsNotOkay says:

      Then all GP’s lawyers needed to do was the Mike Brady defense: drop a briefcase in the back of the room and watch him turn his neck in shock toward the noise, quickly and without pain. Case. Closed.

    • Lorelei says:

      He also went too far by comparing her to freaking Jeffrey Epstein when he was on the stand. Gwyneth is insufferable, but come on. The look on her face at that moment is priceless.

  7. Becks1 says:

    I haven’t been following this case beyond what’s been posted here and even then just sort of surface level, and neither has my husband (we’re both lawyers, he’s a PI attorney). So whatever to the outcome, I have no feeling one way or the other on it, it sounds like it was the right one.

    but I am laughing at so many comments about how Paltrow was the more believable one on the stand and she was calm and more credible. The actress was more believable on the stand?!?!?! Who would have thought?!!?!?!?

    • Eurydice says:

      Yes, that’s pretty funny – but perhaps they mean that what she actually said was more believable?

      • Lemons says:

        Goop wasn’t acting…if she had been, she may have come across as more sympathetic. Instead, she gave rich bitch, I don’t have time for this energy the entire trial which didn’t make me like her more.

        But she was telling the truth, and the other guy was clearly looking for a payout. Justice prevailed, w/e that means for these two!

      • sparrow says:

        Lemons & others. I agree. My civil litigation and criminal law solicitor family certainly felt that the one in actor mode was Sanderson, who continually fell into a befuddled, blame it on my injured brain, “act”. Paltrow was formal, polite, succinct. Her responses were quick. His were rambling and shifting and often falling into dramatic pauses and self-effacing gestures. She was confident and self-possessed. So what? Anyone from any professional background or walk of life can be like that. She wasn’t caught in the headlights of the camera and audience, no doubt because of her profession, but neither was he; in fact he revelled in it and tried to appeal to the common man element of those around him. Anyone, legal or not, could see he was talking nonsense and milking the moment. If we follow the argument that an actor on the stand gets away with stuff because they are actors, we are denying them recourse to defending themselves without doubting the result. It’s a dangerous premise and a prejudice.

      • Isabella says:

        Legally: The case turned on “who was the downhill skier, and who crashed into whom.” The rest was just nonsense. She made a good witness for herself and the wardrobe was impeccable. If I could afford it, I would wear all of it. It even looked comfortable. Glad her kids didn’t have to testify in public. Twitter would’ve gone wild.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        Agree @Lemon,sparrow. I’m not a fan of Gwyneth’s ‘acting’. The best I’m coming up with is Shallow Hal or young Wendy in Hook.imo It’s ironic? to me (if it’s the right? word) because I have an appreciation for her mother’s, Blythe Danner, body of work.

        Gwyneth wasn’t believable because she’s an actress. She wasn’t believable because she’s some modicum of truth. Her version (which I believe) held more truth to the situation. Her smugness was annoying.

    • Chaine says:

      The guy was unbelievable from his first moments on the stand under cross examination when Goop’s lawyer showed that the guy had lied under oath in a deposition about being five foot eight inches and he was really only five foot five.

      • Becks1 says:

        Like I said I haven’t followed the case at all and don’t really care that much about the outcome, lol.

        But I think regardless of the facts Gwyneth would have come off as more believable. that was literally her job for decades before she became Queen Goop. (and I’m one who always thought she was actually a pretty decent actress.)

      • Eurydice says:

        I haven’t followed it at all, either. But when I read something here about how he said his alternate personality was testifying, it made me feel like I really missed something.

      • Kitten says:

        I mean, she was under oath so presumably, acting is off the table. And if she was acting, what character was she playing? The insufferable elite? Isn’t that…who she actually is? LOL

    • Lux says:

      @Becks1 Maybe just watch the testimonies and see if YOU find her more believable? You know, us non-lawyers can also be discerning, even when an actress is on the stand.

      I think many commenters offered far more in the way of explanation than just her being “calm”. As for finding her more “credible”? People were ready to crucify her based on her elitist, snooty image! We could all easily see her do a crash and run. In fact, I remember when reports first came out—a blurb of how she crashed into someone, shook herself off and skied downhill—I was like, yup, sounds about right. The fact that we now believe her has everything to do with the facts and less to do with her acting (like the elitist snob that she is).

      • Becks1 says:


        my comment was more aimed at all the comments I saw on social media about this, not necessarily this site.

        @Kitten saying she was an actress doesn’t mean that I think she was lying. Just that I am not surprised she came off better on the stand.

        And no, honestly, I dont care enough to watch the testimonies. I have royal gossip to follow!

    • sparrow says:

      I watched it with my solicitor partner and with observations from my solicitor/barrister family. They didn’t feel she was at benefit from being an actor in how she responded, which was quick and formal. They thought she probably benefited only from not being overwhelmed by the attention of people and cameras, as if on set. However, there was the opinion that Sanderson actually enjoyed that aspect of the attention hugely and played more to the gallery than she did.

  8. sunny says:

    Yes to that but it wasn’t just performance or delivery to me, it is that her version of event actually sounded more logical. Even if you removed both people from this case and say it was two other individuals, I believe the GP side of it would still sound like a more logical chain of events.

  9. Normades says:

    She wouldn’t have put herself out there if she wasn’t absolutely sure her case was solid. In the end this turned out to be great publicity for her and her “brand”. Rich white lady vindicated. She gained more than a dollar here.

    • Dutch says:

      It doesn’t appear to say anywhere in the post but she also won her attorney’s fees, which I’m sure is not an insignificant sum.

      • Lizzie says:

        The judge will decide if TS has to pay GP’s attorney’s fees. I think he will schedule a hearing.

      • Josephine says:

        @ Lizzie – I thought that he does have to pay, but there will be a hearing to determine what is reasonable?

  10. Sue E Generis says:

    Gwyneth talking about her integrity. Heh.

  11. Bingo says:

    The Judge set aside the legal fees for next month. I can imagine the bill Terry is going to get hit with Goop’s legal fees.

    I wish him well also once he sees what’s coming.

    • TeamMeg says:

      I was wondering about the legal fees part of her countersuit, and what happened there. Next month is only a day away…maybe we’ll find out soon.

      • Bingo says:

        I’m curious also about who collects. Does Goop have to pay her lawyers and then recover from Terry? Do her lawyers go after him? Or was she covered under insurance and the insurance company goes after him to be made whole?

        I have so many questions!

  12. Kate says:

    Good. This whole thing was so silly.

  13. Odin says:

    Watched the entire case and GP’s legal team was just superior to Anderson’s . I respect her for not being extorted just because she’s a celebrity. Good luck to him paying her attorney fees! Over 7 years and all their expenses for expert input and testimony could exceed a million dollars. The display of his Facebook travels after the accident where he does everything from rock climbing to white water rafting showed no signs of suffering from this incident.

    • Mimi says:

      Again, for the people in the back. There are simply some cases you have to defend and not pay just to get out of it. GP’s attorneys had all this information and proof, as he was whining about not being able to ski again.

      • molly says:

        Exactly. Her legal team knew what they had. (They also knew the level of bonkers they had in this Sanderson guy.) Good for her for pursuing it this long.

    • sparrow says:

      It was a cheap attempt at extortion, you’re absolutely right. He had also tried a blanket extortion of the ski resort and some members of its staff.

      I also would have fought it if I were her, fundamentally because what he was trying to imply about her character on that day was awful – that she would hit into someone, leave, and get staff to shout at him. GP was patient yet very good at outwitting his lawyer when needed (which wasn’t hard!). GP was asked something about why she didn’t inquire into how Sanderson was later in the day and replied something like, “I don’t know about you but a person doesn’t tend to ask after the person who has just collided into the back of them”.

  14. Ang says:

    Can someone please save me a google search? Was he claiming she skied into him or that she stopped suddenly forcing him to ski into her? Was he flat out lying, or was there just a misunderstanding that caused him broken bones (ie a normal ski accident, not litigation worthy)?

    • Odin says:

      Ang, he claimed she was the uphill skier. Uphill skier is responsible not to ski into skiers in front of him. That was his claim. There were no eyewitnesses except one for Anderson who came off weak testifying. I believe he believed he skied into her. It came down to a he said she said incident. Goops legal team bought in expert medical input showing same brain activity from before the crash until after. So he suffered 4 broken ribs. Had he has limited the scope of damages to his ribs he might have sued for 100k or something reasonable and her insurance would have covered it. But asking for 3 million probably made Gwenth dig in ,to her,he was in the wrong.

      • sparrow says:

        The ski resort instructor saw the immediate aftermath and witnessed that Sanderson was the uphill skier and therefore at fault. I know this instructor was teaching her kids, but he is an employee of the resort. He came across as credible.

    • K.T says:

      Since I’ve been following the trial, I’ll try and people can add on!
      1. Terry Sanderson says she slammed into him as she was distracted and watching a ski instructor with her kids.
      2. Sanderson’s meet-up friend was skiing higher up on hill to his friend and he said Gwyneth slammed into plantiff. Unfortunately the friend is colour blind and got a few details wrong
      3. Gwyneth says he slammed into back of her. Then, entangled in her skis with his skis in between, they fell back on their sides together with her on top.
      3. Gwyneth’s kid’s ski instructor was ahead, and watching kid’s in front of them. He said looking around, he noticed Sanderson doing wide turns up on the mountain – Gwyneth was on another side lower down. Then, as he was looking at kids again in front, he heard a scream and then saw Sanderson and Paltrow on ground. .

      IThe accounts vary but Sanderson on the stand kept changing his testimony – he was unconscious from either 2min to 10min, he could remember random, minute details or very little if asked by defence, he was at once incapacitated by trauma yet still scuba diving in the Caribbean etc…

      • Lizzie says:

        I’ve been thinking about TS friends’ testimony. Along with his colorblindness, he might have made assumptions based on build rather than skiwear. TS is 5 inches shorter than GP. Possibly the friend incorrectly assumed he saw a woman ski into a man because he saw a shorter person skied into the taller.

      • sparrow says:

        One of Sanderson’s best changes of testimony was that he had been 5.8″ and a lot heavier at deposition and then changed it to being 5.5″ and a lot lighter in the court room. I think it was a blatant attempt to imply that GP could have damaged him physically. He said his first set of measurements was so wildly different because he’d been in clothes on the scale and they’d added weight, but GP’s lawyer said not by that much and certainly not by 3 inches! It was hilarious. When they ran through the facebook evidence, Sanderson was flailing and started on about his daughters in the pictures, as if the jury would be swayed by the sweetness of a family guy and not disgusted by photos of him skiing again, white water rafting, hiking….He came across as a very odd man. And dislikeable.

    • Ang says:

      Thanks for the insights. It must be difficult to rule when there is no evidence other than what the two parties involved saw.

  15. Harper says:

    That was an excruciatingly boring trial. I only tuned in at the end of last week because I was promised Gwynnie, Apple, Moses and Brad on the witness stand, but in a classic Court TV bait and switch I got biomedical engineers, biomechanical engineers, and experts on Newtonian physics on the stand instead. Snore. GOOP’s team could have shown the 70 Facebook photos of Sanderson globe-trotting post-collision and rested their case three days ago. However, it was a fun ending, so for Excellence in Verdict Reading Deportment, the Oscar goes to …. Gwynnie. She scored well in costume too so I’ll add another Oscar as well.

    • BeanieBean says:

      That made me laugh to see the physics guy explaining things on his whiteboard! And then we got the fancy schmancy animated ‘recreation’ of events. Way, way overboard for this type of thing! But hey, that’s Goopie.

    • Jenn says:

      Oh, you would’ve enjoyed the morning Gwynnie took the stand, then. ABC streamed it live on TikTok and everyone who saw it was losing their minds. The prosecuting attorney kept trying to trick Gwyn into incriminating herself, and the defense shouted “objection” every 20 seconds. Then the defense attorney cross-examined his client and openly flirted with her and it was cringily hilarious. But I think it was only enjoyable in real time, very “you had to be there.”

  16. Katie Beanstalk says:

    Goop reminds me of the song ‘Shoop’ because it rhymes.

    • sparrow says:

      Ha ha ha! I always rely on some c’ber for a Friday laugh and here it is. I only got to see much of the proceedings because I’m off work, ill, so thanks for the smile.

  17. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    Yay, now I can scroll without seeing her image everywhere.

  18. Kyra says:

    I don’t find GP wishing the Plaintiff well to be cold at all. I actually thought that was genuine and real.

    I have been a defence lawyer for over 20 years working in a Tribunal setting. At the conclusion of almost all files, my client and I will routinely express our best wishes to Claimant going forward. It’s very common and respectful.

    You can have differing views of the evidence and the financial value of a case and still be sympathetic to an individual and what they are going through.

    • BeanieBean says:

      Reading about it, I would agree, but watching the video of it, I felt a little different about it. She was on her way out then detoured toward him & very swiftly leant down & said what she said then continued on her way. It was truly the very least she could do.

      • ella says:

        Local jury members unanimously sided with her. Reports at the start of the trial said it was extremely rare there for skiers to sue one another. I thought it was especially weird seeing a male skier suing a female skier with her children on a bunny slope. Publicly accusing her of stuff.

        She herself sent out a weird message around her 50th birthday to goop subscribers saying, among other things, that she gets ‘entities’ attached to her and recommended a specific healer who removed them from her, and that she is not perfect and can be impatient and wants to say -I am sorry-.
        So when she said ‘I wish you well’ to Sanderson it made me think she wanted to avoid any remaining evil energy attaching to her and move on positively.

        Not saying she ever did anything bad but her birthday message sounded like she feels like she’s getting attacked and with sooo many woo-woo-type practices and products on goop, you never really know what you are attracting.

    • Lizzie says:

      I thought it was classy and she was a gracious winner.

      • sparrow says:

        Ditto. Totally, Lizzie. I had no feelings about GP going into this, apart from disliking that she sells products implying women’s vaginas need cleansing via dubious methods. I came away impressed by her and really weirded out by Sanderson, who was having anger management therapy well before the incident and a hell of a lot of holidays after it. The facebook evidence was jaw dropping.

        It was really funny hearing from my relatives as the suit progressed. There are a lot of solicitors and barristers through one side of my family. Their recollections of nightmare clients were really amusing. Their horror at his lawyer and her attempt to disarm and then misdirect GP was also a highlight. Never have I seen the “aw shucks, look at me, the simple country lawyer” opening defence played so badly. I wonder what will happen to her?

    • Melissa says:

      I kind of think she felt sorry for him, because he clearly believed his own story. The one mostly told to him by his meetup ski buddy. A guy who gave off “Interview Meee! I witnessed a celebrity behaving badly!” vibes. By the end of testimony, I saw Sanderson as a patsy, used by a “friend” and ambulance chasing lawyers.

      Goop played it just right. She didn’t come in like a celebrity; she was a prickly 40-something woman who just so OVER having to defend herself.

      And Sanderson’s lawyers? The real reason they kept him out of the courtroom was because they knew he would be a loose cannon, and slip out of his I’m damaged and broken act. Oh, look….he did that anyway!

  19. sparrow says:

    I am pleased she won. Some of her personality regarding wellness is insufferable, but why should she deny herself the right to protect her name and character just because she is wealthy? I’m off work through illness, and watched a lot of the suit. I feel she was measured, polite and well mannered. His testimony was ridiculous and very odd, and not because of “brain injury” as he asserted every time he ****ed it up. He denied being fully blind in his right eye – despite being an optometrist, it was a “fluid description”! He previously tried to sue the ski resort and staff. Totally after the money.

    I went in thinking that this was a financial David & Goliath, and suspect this somehow made me feel sorry for him to begin with. But why would someone like Paltrow fight it if she could pay to forget it? And he is no everyman. He’s a retired professional, skiing, with numerous expensive trips and activities following the accident. His lawyer’s faux “aren’t I dumb” approach was ridiculous and backfired, and her ribbing of Paltrow as some kind of weird diva for believing a man running into her back and putting his skis through her legs immediately felt like a sexual assault is shameful. Most women, inc probably herself, would interpret it like that within the first seconds.

    The “I missed an afternoon of skiing”. Paltrow was being factual after being asked what happened following the accident. I got hit, I went in, I missed an afternoon of skiing.

    • Lizzie says:

      Well put Sparrow. I just want to add that GP had to have some financial loss in order to file a counter claim, and the half day skiing qualified. She wasn’t moaning, she had to show some financial loss.

      • ella says:

        I’m happy for her, Sanderson and his buddy who testified against gp came across as old men with old-school views of women. But I do wonder why a 5 foot 10 woman needs to eat sooo meticulously, don’t taller people hide their fat better?

  20. molly says:

    Between the Trump news and the Gwyneth news, it’s such a shame that Twitter is a sad husk of its former self. Last night would have been bonkers with content, and it was just a whimper buried in 2-day old content from people I don’t follow. Tragic.

  21. Blue Nails Betty says:

    “I wish you well.”

    “That was nice of her.”

    Oh honey, no. That bitch just cursed you for your next three lives.

    • Melissa says:


      And his “Thank you, dear…” was him patting her on the head and saying “That’s nice…”

      He looked almost gleeful right then, too…because he was about to head out to a press conference. He was looking forward to expounding on trivial points and claiming it is impossible to sue a he needs all the sympathy and head pats..

  22. Birte says:

    This was such a funny trial and, to me, a very entertaining “cast” of characters. If you’ve seen it: “I don’t even care what year”. Still has me laughing. The young lawyer with his gum, James Egan (so good!) complete with adorable hair and braces? And the medical experts brought on by GP’s Team were so stealthy.
    I would feel sorry for T.S., who’s “still up on that mountain”, according to the coughing menace that was his lawyer, but his Epstein comment was terrible. What is he, a member of QAnon?

  23. Jess says:

    Some of these comments are OTT. Gwen knows she doesn’t have to do anything but he herself but regardless this situation was bizarre. It doesn’t matter how I feel about her but this was an obvious money grab and he thought he could get away with it. In my opinion more celebrities should fight back. This extortion and blatant lying is ridiculous.

    • Lizzie says:

      The DM headlines I saw today all reference TS suing for $300,000. Worth noting his lawyer requested additional $3.2 million in his closing argument. This was for pain and suffering, at $33/per hour, 16 hours per day, last 7 years since accident and additional 10 years life expectancy.

  24. sparrow says:

    I’m certainly going into the shallow waters here, after all the above comments I’ve made, but can someone explain why her hair looked so acid yellow, almost green, at points? Was that the lighting?

    • Jenn says:

      OK, the trial was being livestreamed on TikTok, and when Gwyneth was on the stand being questioned by the prosecutor, some kid typed into live chat, in all caps, “THEY BOTH NEED PURPLE SHAMPOO” and I choked on my coffee. (I think most likely the overhead fluorescent lighting adds a slight green tinge to y2k-era highlights.)

    • Inka says:

      Not just that, but you can clearly see the line of hair extensions next to her center parting in the second picture from the bottom!
      How unbecoming.

      • sparrow says:

        Thank you, both! I am hopeless at hair stuff. It took me months to get on board with Kate’s wiglets, but I can’t unsee them now. I suspect I’ll never be able to spot extensions.

  25. Pointillist says:

    Really tired of internalised misogyny being thrown around as a reason when women are criticised. Especially rich white women with immense privilege doing harm.

    Gwyneth is a CEO of a company that disseminates harmful products and most importantly ideas about wellness and women’s bodies. See Dr Gunther and many other actual doctors and scientists who have been highly critical of some of these harmful and dysfunctional ideas and products which have no scientific basis and no bearing to a reality where true health can be attained. You have to keep on buying wack products to be healthy at sometimes exorbitant prices when we don’t need half of these things.

    Since Goop is a capitalist and getting very rich from this she has had no compunction in the past about this – talking about monetising eyeballs, “joking” about how she can sell anything to people and they’ll buy it, bragging about how much her company is worth. Conde Nast refused to continue with the Goop magazine because Goop didn’t want fact checkers.

    Goop has no business credentials and no credibility as a CEO. Just like everything else in her life, it has been given to her on a silver platter in an area where she had no expertise based on a career ladder. Being a CEO requires strong leadership experience but even then there are commenters who don’t really take Paltrow seriously when they say it’s internalised misogyny. These commenters do not look at the big picture – they say she’s just a woman selling products so don’t buy them. No she is a CEO who sets the tone of the company and oversees the biggest decisions. Ultimately while there is an executive, the business comes down to her.

    Her company has feedback on Glassdoor of low wages and poor treatment. Even Elise Loehnen who was chief content officer talked about the disordered eating that happened due to working at Goop. Other companies have to take culpability for selling harmful products such as tanning beds, talcum powder which causes cancer and which targeted Black women so not sure why people defend Paltrow with internalised misogyny claims and say just don’t buy them !! when she is capitalising on harm, hasn’t fostered a good work culture and isn’t qualified to do the job.