“As a result of Defendants’ misconduct, members of the public, including the news media, have falsely and horrifically associated Balenciaga with the repulsive and deeply disturbing subject of the court decision,”
I guess the defence will be that, a company that produces a bag that looks like a child's toy twisted into deviant sex imagery doesn't have much of a reputation that can be damaged by a publicly available court document sitting virtually anonymously on a table.
It will all be about the surrounding evidence: the brief given to the producers, the licence for creative autonomy, whether any specific breach of contract has occurred, what checking pre release procedures are in place at the company etc. Just in terms of a timeline of what's bought the negative attention onto Balenciaga, the bears and the kids holding them is the first and foremost image that has done this, I believe. The rest of the fine details came out after that negative publicity, by members of the public doing after the event sleuthing. Any defence would claim that the damage was done by the bears/kids before anyone looked at the other props on the set.
The other props in the other ads- the book, the certificate with the child rapist's name, and, I believe paperwork pertaining to a Washington based company that is connected with some child disappearances - how does Balenciaga explain these, if the producers of those ads were a different entity? Are they just very, very unfortunate to keep engaging with pervert contractors sending out secret Easter eggs to pedos; or are they in fact briefing these outsourced producers in a way that makes them believe anything goes?