Entries from August 2018 ↓

(Getty Images)

Is Jennifer Aniston really helping Brad Pitt get his custody of his kids in his court battle with Angelina Jolie? That’s the premise of a tabloid story, but there is no merit to the claims. Gossip Cop can debunk the report.

The latest edition of NW announces a “courtroom showdown with Angelina.” A headline with a fake quote blares, “Jen: ‘I’ll Help Brad Get His Kids Back!’” The article claims Pitt is “ensuring he gains permanent joint custody by unleashing a secret weapon in court — his ex-wife Jennifer Aniston!” It’s alleged “the OG Mrs Pitt” has said “she’ll take the stand to defend the devoted dad.”

“Jen is appalled at the way Brad’s being treated and will do anything she can to get him through this,” a so-called “insider” is quoted as saying. The magazine’s untraceable source goes on, “She’s more than willing to stand up as a character witness and reiterate that Brad is a dedicated, responsible dad who lives a clean and sober life.” To that end, the outlet maintains Pitt and Aniston “have been in constant contact for months and are rock-solid confidants who speak most days.”

Contends the purported tipster, “Jen has been so touched by Brad’s dedication and devotion towards his kids. She figures standing up for him before a judge is the least she could do.” The publication concludes by editorializing, “Poor Brad… but at least he has Jen fighting [in] his corner!” Tellingly, the tabloid makes no mention of Aniston and Pitt being “married in Paris,” which is what it claimed (albeit wrongly) in a March cover story.

As Gossip Cop noted then, People had already reported (and we verified) that Pitt and Aniston haven’t seen one another “in ages,” and they don’t keep “in regular contact.” In June, Aniston’s own friend Portia de Rossi again confirmed that she and Pitt hadn’t seen each other. de Rossi also blasted the gossip media for continuing to falsely link them.

So, given that exes have not kept in touch in any significant manner, it hardly makes sense to claim Aniston can serve as a “character witness” in his custody battle with Jolie. Aniston and Pitt divorced in 2005, and they had no children together, so she did not witness him in a fatherly capacity. Aniston later infamously accused Pitt of missing a “sensitivity chip,” and in 2011, Pitt was forced to clarify after he seemingly dissed her and their marriage.

Then in 2013, Pitt copped to doing drugs during his marriage to Aniston. So, between their sordid history and the current distance between them, it’s readily apparent that the actress would not be able to provide testimony that would depict him as a “devoted dad.” Aniston has stayed completely uninvolved in Pitt’s custody battle with Jolie thus far, and there is no legitimate reason for that to change. And it won’t.

(Getty Images)

When Angelina Jolie filed for divorce from Brad Pitt nearly two years ago, the rumor mill went wild. Much misinformation spread in the immediate aftermath of their split, and though the tabloids have continued to churn out false stories, the gossip media has really ramped things up again now that the former couple’s custody battle is worsening. Below, Gossip Cop separates fact from fiction amid the latest developments.

FICTION: Angelina Jolie is calling off her divorce from Brad Pitt to end their custody battle, according to the Globe.
FACT: The supermarket tabloid alleged Jolie believed the only way to ensure she would get to keep full custody of their six kids would be to get back together with her estranged husband. “She’s doing her best to mend her fractured relationship with Brad and become a family again,” a supposed insider was quoted as saying. But as Gossip Cop reported, the actress hasn’t had any intention of romantically reuniting with Pitt for any reason.

FICTION: Angelina Jolie collapsed from stress of the custody battle, according to the National Enquirer.
FACT: The tabloid, a sister outlet to the Globe, deceptively designed a cover story that purported to show Jolie fainting during a humanitarian trip to Iraq weeks prior. The Oscar winner did indeed go to Mosul, but the “collapse” pictures featured weren’t from then. As Gossip Cop pointed out, the magazine purposely misled readers by using photos of Jolie doing stunts for the movie Wanted in 2007. This wasn’t evidence of a recent health crisis. It was the star playing pretend more than a decade ago.

FICTION: Angelina Jolie is going to use a “dirt diary” against Brad Pitt, according to RadarOnline.
FACT: The site wanted readers to believe Jolie secretly kept a “vivid account” of her “explosive marriage” to Pitt and was now ready to share it in an effort “to blow their bitter custody battle wide open.” A so-called “source” maintained the “diary” would be “very damaging to Brad’s custody hopes,” and that Jolie was “calling it her trump card.” Gossip Cop explained, however, that if she really had such material, she would’ve presented it to the judge already to prove her ex was an unfit father. But she hadn’t provided any such evidence to date, which is why the court granted Pitt more time with their children and encouraged Jolie to facilitate a better relationship between the kids and their father.

FICTION: Brad Pitt is going to use an alleged child predator against Angelina Jolie, according to RadarOnline and the National Enquirer.
FACT: The site and its sister publication peddled virtually identical stories claiming that upon learning someone Jolie had once crossed paths with at a United Nations event in 2014 was recently arrested for child sex crimes, Pitt “hit the roof over fears she may have exposed their kids” to the alleged criminal. It was said friends were now “urging him to really play this up as part of his bid for full custody.” But Gossip Cop’s investigation uncovered that Pitt was with Jolie at that particular global summit, meaning he was just as connected to the man as she was. Additionally, the notion that a judge would penalize Jolie for a single association with someone who later allegedly committed crimes was preposterous.

FICTION: Jennifer Aniston feels “horrible” about Brad Pitt’s custody battle with Angelina Jolie, according to HollywoodLife.
FACT: The blog claimed to have an “exclusive” about how Aniston was “#TeamBrad” and “taking his side” as Pitt and Jolie battled. “Knowing Brad as well as she does, Jen is in agony over the pain Brad must be going through fighting with his ex just to be with his own kids,” an untraceable “source” was quoted as saying. It was readily apparent the website was just trying to capitalize on all the interest in the custody battle by pretending to have related insight. Aniston’s rep even told Gossip Cop that the article was “just another example of a gossip outlet making up a story for clickbait.”

FICTION: Brad Pitt was dumped by Neri Oxman due to his custody battle with Angelina Jolie, according to RadarOnline.
FACT: The online publication claimed the MIT professor ended things with Pitt because she was “scared off” by his ongoing drama with Jolie. An unidentifiable insider asserted, “Dating Brad was creating enough stress and headlines, but once Angie made it clear the custody battle was going to become a circus, Neri was out!” In actuality, as Gossip Cop has already reported multiple times, stories about Pitt and Oxman dating were wrong to begin with. They never had a romantic relationship, so this latest tale was not only untrue, but baseless.

FICTION: Jennifer Aniston is “ecstatic” over Angelina Jolie’s “divorce drama” with Brad Pitt, according to RadarOnline.
FACT: The site alleged the “Friends” star was “delighted to see” Jolie “suffering” and supposedly hitting “rock bottom” as the custody battle with Pitt worsened. A so-called “insider” claimed, “This is a woman Jen views as pure evil, so is she happy to see her miserable and getting the payback she deserves? You bet she is.” The day before this narrative was published, Jolie was photographed smiling while out with the kids, so she obviously wasn’t spending her hours in misery. Regardless, a spokesperson for Aniston remarked to Gossip Cop that the claims she was finding glee in Jolie’s woes were “just more rubbish.”

FICTION: Angelina Jolie hired a “reputation guru” to repair her image amid public battling with Brad Pitt, according to Woman’s Day.
FACT: The magazine cited an insider, who supposedly divulged, “She’s realized that her legal team’s tactics aren’t working and are in fact turning everyone against her.” To that end, it was alleged Jolie had hired Michael Sitrick, who previously worked with Chris Brown and Harvey Weinstein, to do damage control. It was even said the crisis manager was encouraging Jolie to personally sit down with Pitt and make peace. There was one pretty big problem, though: Sitrick himself confirmed to Gossip Cop that Jolie was “not a client.”

FICTION: Brad Pitt is angry over Angelina Jolie’s bodyguard “playing dad” with their kids, according to Woman’s Day.
FACT: The tabloid seized on pictures of Jolie and some of the children being accompanied by a security guard as they shopped, contending Pitt was “worried” he was being replaced because “this guy is hugely important in [her] life and the children absolutely adore him too.” But in reality, it had already been reported that the Jolie-Pitt lifestyle includes multiple bodyguards, not just a single “guy” spending all his time with the kids, with the actor often footing the bill. Pitt’s rep also told Gossip Cop it was untrue he was bothered by someone hired to protect his children.

FICTION: Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s daughter Shiloh is planning to do a divorce tell-all, according to Woman’s Day.
FACT: An alleged insider supposedly said of the 12-year-old, “She’s been biting her tongue for a long time and has been longing to speak out for the last few months. But after Angelina’s recent stunt to try to paint her dad in a bad light, something snapped in her and she really wants to tell everyone just how much she and her siblings miss Brad and want him back in their lives.” Curiously, it was never said in the article what form this “tell-all” would take, and given that she’s a minor, her parents would need to sign off on any such project. Perhaps that’s why a spokesperson to Pitt commented to Gossip Cop that the premise of this storyline made “no sense.” And, proving that mother and daughter were still on good terms, Shiloh had just stepped out for a movie day with Jolie right before these obviously phony claims were made.

FICTION: Angelina Jolie is pushing for a “quickie” divorce from Brad Pitt because she wants to marry an English billionaire, according to In Touch.
FACT: The tabloid did a cover story alleging the real reason Jolie was filing court motions about dissolving her marriage to Pitt was because she wanted to tie the knot with “husband No. 4.” Pitt, meanwhile, was described as “dead set” against her plans because of how it would affect their kids: “He’s trying to repair his relationship with them. The last thing he needs is a billionaire who wants a trophy wife swooping in.” Of course, as Gossip Cop explained, this supposed groom-to-be didn’t actually exist. This was a bogus scenario the magazine returns to over and over, including last November, when the outlet falsely announced a secret wedding for Jolie. At no point has there been evidence that this beau is anything but a work of fiction.

FICTION: Angelina Jolie is battling Brad Pitt for custody because he’s hooking up with Jennifer Aniston, according to the Globe.
FACT: After its flub about Jolie supposedly calling off the divorce, the outlet concocted a new narrative, this one claiming she was “out for revenge” upon learning Pitt has been “sneaking off to hook up” with Aniston. In suspiciously unnatural language, an alleged insider maintained, “Bitter Angie wants to make him look bad, especially in front of their six kids.” As Gossip Cop pointed out, though, Pitt and Aniston have spent the summer in different countries as they shoot separate film projects. Obviously, then, it’s impossible for them to have been hooking up. This nonexistent romance has nothing do with Jolie’s court filings.

FICTION: Jennifer Aniston is helping Brad Pitt get his kids back in a court battle with Angelina Jolie, according to NW.
FACT: It was claimed the actor was “ensuring he gains permanent joint custody by unleashing a secret weapon in court,” the “OG Mrs Pitt,” who supposedly offered to “take the stand to defend the devoted dad.” A so-called “insider” asserted about Aniston, “She’s more than willing to stand up as a character witness and reiterate that Brad is a dedicated, responsible dad who lives a clean and sober life.” Notably the publication said nothing about Pitt and Aniston being married again, which is what it alleged in a March cover story. As Gossip Cop explained, the tabloid also overlooked the fact that when Aniston and Pitt divorced in 2005, they didn’t have any kids, and she has never personally “witnessed” him as a “devoted dad” in the time since. They have both also criticized each other while discussing their marriage over the years, so Aniston would have no basis for offering positive, relevant testimony.

Gossip Cop previously did a fact vs. fiction roundup following the news of Jolie and Pitt’s summer custody agreement in June. As the above recap shows, a lot of has been written in the two months since then, much of it inaccurate. And as this dispute will likely carry over into the fall, Gossip Cop will continue to tell fans what’s real and what’s untrue rumor as necessary..

(Getty Images)

Emma Stone is one of the most popular actresses in the world, which means she’s also a frequent target of false tabloids stories. Gossip Cop has debunked countless phony articles about the star’s dating life, career, Hollywood friendships and more. Here are five wrong rumors about Stone.

Last month, Gossip Cop called out Woman’s Day Australia for making up a ridiculous story about Stone being pregnant with Justin Theroux’s baby. The only evidence? The outlet contended that the actress had been spotted “wearing baggy clothes and seemingly trying to cover a baby bump.” Just a few weeks before the article was written, however, Stone attended The Band’s Visit on Broadway wearing tight jeans and a tucked-in shirt. She had nothing to hide. Meanwhile, Stone begins filming Zombieland 2 next January, so she’s obviously not putting her career on the backburner to have a baby. It’s also been well-established that the actress isn’t in a relationship with Theroux. Stone described Theroux “like my brother” in an interview with WWD in May.

Gossip Cop busted The Hollywood Gossip in June for falsely claiming that Stone was at war with Jennifer Aniston over Theroux. It was alleged that Aniston was “having trouble letting go” of her estranged husband and wasn’t happy about him moving on with the younger actress. Every aspect of the story was untrue. As noted above, there was never a romance between Stone and Theroux, which their mutual friend Jonathan Van Ness confirmed to E! News in June. That same month, People reported that Aniston is “happily moving on with her life.”

In April, Star wrongly reported that Stone and Margot Robbie were in the running to star in a female-led reboot of Indiana Jones. The story emerged simply because Steven Spielberg nodded his head in an interview when asked if he could see a woman taking over the franchise one day. That day won’t be anytime soon. Spielberg will be directing Harrison Ford in a fifth Indiana Jones movie, which starts shooting in the U.K. next year. The scenario about a female Indiana Jones reboot was completely hypothetical.

Gossip Cop busted OK! in February for falsely claiming that Stone was developing a romance with Jonah Hill on the set of their upcoming Netflix series “Maniac.” It was alleged that the two were flirting non-stop during the shoot and on their way to becoming a “new couple.” When the article was published, a source close to the situation assured us it wasn’t true, and time has proven that to be the case. Hill is currently dating stylist Gianna Santos, and the two have been spotted on several outings in New York City over the past month.

And finally, Gossip Cop shot down a September 2017 OK! story about Stone feuding with Jennifer Lawrence. The claim was solely based on the actresses sharing a somewhat awkward hug at the Toronto International Film Festival. The magazine wrongly interpreted the botched embrace as a sign of resentment and jealousy. In reality, the actresses are very close friends. Earlier this month, Lawrence interviewed Stone for Elle. And earlier this year, Stone and Lawrence sat down for a joint interview with W magazine, in which the actresses were described as “the quintessential Hollywood BFFs.”

(Getty Images)

A tabloid report claiming Chris Pratt and Katherine Schwarzenegger’s relationship is already in trouble because of the actor’s busy schedule is completely untrue. Gossip Cop can debunk the baseless claim. A rep for Pratt confirms it’s false, and there’s plenty of evidence that the couple’s romance is continuing to blossom.

Life & Style, however, claims that “on a recent night out,” the lifestyle blogger was overheard complaining to a friend about Pratt being unavailable. The magazine’s “source” quotes Schwarzenegger as having said, “I don’t see Chris enough. He works all the time.” Tellingly, the magazine doesn’t mention where or when the author made these statements.

The supposed insider adds, “Katherine is not an actress, so she’s not used to the long film shoots and being apart for months.” No, she’s not an actress. But her father, Arnold Schwarzenegger, was once one of the biggest movie stars in the world. It’s safe to say the author is well aware of how an actor’s schedule works. Still, the questionable tipster concludes, “This is not a good sign for their budding romance.”

The tabloid’s article is lacking any real details, which is a major red flag. Still, Gossip Cop checked in with Pratt’s spokesperson, who tells us on the record that the report is “inaccurate.” The magazine hides behind an anonymous and untraceable “source,” but a rep qualified to speak on the actor’s behalf confirms the story is bogus.

Just last week, People published an article chronicling Pratt and Schwarzenegger’s “blossoming relationship.” Shortly before that, the magazine shared photos of Pratt and Schwarzenegger on a date night in Los Angeles. The credible outlet also reported that Pratt and Schwarzenegger’s relationship “is getting more serious” as she’s been getting to know the actor’s 5-year-old son. “They are spending every day together and Katherine has met Jack several times,” noted the magazine.

In the past few weeks alone, the couple has been spotted attending church together and having dinner at her family’s home. In fact, a Google search of both their names will result in dozens of articles about the two on various outings together over the past few months. It should also be noted, Pratt doesn’t appear to be shooting a film at the moment, so the notion that he’s always working doesn’t add up.

Gossip Cop should also mention that Life & Style’s sister publication, In Touch, just published a contradictory story about Pratt and Schwarzenegger getting engaged. We busted that report as well, but the conflicting narratives are quite odd considering the two tabloids are owned by the same company. It would appear that neither outlet has any real insight into the couple’s relationship.

(Getty Images)

Britney Spears was not “snubbed” by Meghan Markle and Kate Middleton, despite reports. The articles also claim the pop star was rejected by Prince Harry and Queen Elizabeth, too. But Gossip Cop can bust the false stories.

The allegations originate in the new edition of Star, which features the headline, “Britney Spears Snubbed By Harry And Meghan.” The piece begins by asserting that when the singer “brought her ‘Piece of Me’ tour to the U.K. recently, she was sure that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle wanted just that.” A so-called “spy” is quoted as saying, “Britney had her assistant write notes to Buckingham and Kensington palaces requesting audiences with the newlyweds and Queen Elizabeth.”

But it’s alleged Spears was “shocked to receive a letter back from both palaces — not from the royals themselves — saying everyone was too busy to meet her.” Laments the tabloid’s untraceable source, “Poor Britney didn’t understand, she thought everyone wanted to meet her.” This supposed snitch goes on to claim Spears was “offered a meeting” with Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, “but said, ‘Oh aren’t they the boring ones with the funny hats?’”

The outlet further contends Spears “hoped (in vain) that Prince William and Duchess Kate would cut their Mystique vacation [sic] short to meet her.” Maintains the alleged tipster, “She didn’t realize royals had commitments. She thought they just dressed up and hung out in a ‘court.’” Clearly this storyline is trying to play off the misconception that Spears is just a dumb blonde.

But Gossip Cop suspects there’s another reason why this narrative was concocted: Spears and her sons visited Buckingham Palace, like thousands of other tourists, earlier this month. The star posed for family photos outside the palace grounds, and just a week ago, Spears posted two of the snapshots on Instagram, writing, “Throwback to exploring London with the boys! Can’t wait to be back for #PieceOfMe next week! #TBT.” That makes it pretty obvious why the publication would be inspired to make this story up.

Another indication that this was all manufactured is the claim that Spears had her assistant, of all people, “write notes” to the royal family. It’s highly likely that if the performer really did want palace meetings with the royals, her publicity team and management would handle the communication. One more glaring problem? The magazine refers to Middleton’s “Mystique vacation” when the private island is actually known as Mustique.

Making matters worse, HollywoodLife is regurgitating the outlet’s bogus allegations, but also twisting them. Noting Spears’ UK concert dates, the site claims “there were some special guests she reportedly wanted to have in the audience: the royal family,” but “none of them accepted their invites.” The blog wonders about Middleton and Markle, “Why in the world wouldn’t they want to see her in concert?” The website goes on to editorialize, “Hey, it’s their loss, though. Britney’s ‘Piece of Me’ shows are fantastic, and anyone would be lucky to see them. Even the queen!”

But the original Star story said nothing about Spears inviting any of the royals to her shows. Rather, it was alleged she was “requesting audiences” with them. That means she was (supposedly) requesting meetings with Markle and company, not asking them to be in her concert audience. So in addition to not fact-checking the magazine’s article, HollywoodLife apparently didn’t understand it, either.

In any case, a Spears confidante who didn’t wish to be identified tells Gossip Cop that it’s “not true” this alleged situation went down to begin with. The tabloid was also provably mistaken in June when it claimed Spears was “falling apart.” Time has shown we were right to debunk that, given that the singer is currently touring without issue.

(Getty Images)

Chris Pratt and Katherine Schwarzenegger are not engaged, despite a false tabloid report. Gossip Cop can exclusively debunk the claim. A rep for the actor tells us he hasn’t proposed.

Pratt has only been dating the lifestyle blogger for a couple of months, but according to In Touch, the actor popped the question a few weeks ago. An alleged insider tells the magazine, “The proposal was very simple and understated. They didn’t want to draw any attention to it. She’s a simple girl. She didn’t need an over-the-top production.” Tellingly, the magazine provides zero details about the “simple and understated” proposal, such as where it happened and what it entailed.

Still, the questionable source goes on to say that Pratt and Schwarzenegger “can’t wait to become husband and wife” and she “can’t wait to become an official stepmom” to the actor’s 5-year-old son Jack, who he shares with ex Anna Faris. Speaking of Faris, she and Pratt haven’t finalized their divorce yet, making the magazine’s story even less credible.

The tabloid’s premise is coming from an untraceable “insider,” but Pratt’s own spokesperson tells Gossip Cop on the record that it’s “inaccurate.” The actor simply hasn’t proposed to his new girlfriend. Unfortunately, outlets such as HollywoodLife have spread the bogus story online without bothering to do any fact-checking.

It should be noted, Pratt and Schwarzenegger’s relationship appears to be getting more serious, and she has in fact been spending time with his son, but they’re not preparing to walk down the aisle. Credible celebrity news outlets such as People and “Entertainment Tonight” have been covering the couple’s relationship since its onset, but none of these publications have said anything about an engagement.

The actor’s love life has become the subject of bogus tabloid stories ever since he split from Faris last year. In June, Gossip Cop busted Woman’s Day for falsely claiming that Pratt wanted to date Emilia Clarke. The phony story came after the actor had already started developing a romance with Schwarzenegger.

In March, Gossip Cop debunked a phony Star article about Pratt dating a “mystery blonde.” The report emerged after the actor was spotted grabbing coffee with an unidentified woman in Los Angeles. However, we learned that the woman was one of Pratt’s employees, and as time has shown, he never had a blonde girlfriend following his breakup. Gossip Cop will update should there be any new developments in the actor’s relationship with Schwarzenegger, but we can confirm the two aren’t currently engaged.

(Woman’s Day Australia)

Is Meghan Markle pregnant with a baby boy? A new tabloid cover story claims Prince Charles let the news “slip” that son Prince Harry and Markle are expecting. But Gossip Cop can point out the signs that this report is all-made up and untrue.

“We’re Having A Baby Boy,” declares the cover of Woman’s Day Australia. Of course, Prince Harry and Markle have never made any such announcement, but a similar line is used for the article’s headline inside the issue: “Harry & Meghan: We’re Having A Boy!” The magazine claims that when it was revealed the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were “taking a month off from royal duties, the rumor mill went into overdrive that Meghan may be pregnant.” It’s then alleged that Prince Charles has “all but confirmed the happy news and revealed the most exciting part of all — it’s a boy!”

Contends the outlet, “Carrying two little bears dressed in blue on a recent trip to Devon — thought to be a gift for Harry and Meghan after they shared their exciting news — Charles couldn’t hide his delight.” It’s claimed to be the “surest sign yet the palace is about to welcome another little prince into the fold.” While it’s true Prince Charles was photographed holding teddy bears when he visited Devon more than a month ago, there is no evidence that the stuffed animals have anything to do with Markle being pregnant.

It’s worth noting that given Prince Charles has two sons, he could have been given the blue-clad bears in their honor. Prince Charles also has two young grandsons. Couldn’t the teddies have been for them? There is simply nothing to indicate they are connected to Markle and Prince Harry expecting a baby boy. And the publication proves it has no confirmation by going on to write “if Meghan is pregnant.”

Speculates the tabloid, “If Meghan is pregnant, it will explain her and [Harry’s] decision to retreat to the Cotswolds for the coming weeks, to let the news sink in and allow Meghan to rest as she battles with morning sickness.” Actually, the couple isn’t “retreating” at all. After spending part of their summer break in Oxfordshire, Markle and Prince Harry just spent the weekend with the Clooneys in Italy. And on Monday, it was revealed on the official Twitter account for Kensington Palace that they will be attending a special performance of Hamilton on August 29, and will also step out for events on September 4 and September 6.

Still, the magazine goes on to contend that the “timing” of the purported pregnancy “couldn’t be more perfect” because of the couple’s plans to travel to Australia in October. “Everyone at the palace is hoping that if Meghan is indeed suffering from morning sickness, she’ll be feeling a lot better once she’s in her second trimester — which will be when she’s traveling Down Under,” claims a so-called “source.” But the outlet doesn’t acknowledge that Markle and Prince Harry’s trip plans also include official visits to Tonga and Fiji. Both locations are listed on the CDC’s world map of areas pregnant women shouldn’t travel due to the risk of contracting the Zika virus.

The publication also doesn’t say anything about Markle being pregnant with twins, which is what it alleged in a cover story in June. So, which is it? Is the duchess expecting twins, or carrying just one baby boy? Well, as detailed here, it doesn’t appear Markle is pregnant at all. And when the time comes for an actual announcement, it won’t be leaked by Prince Charles or by a tabloid that previously claimed Markle may be a “runaway bride.”

(Getty Images)

A story about why Khloe Kardashian “might get pregnant again ASAP” was made-up. The phony article includes absurdly intimate claims that no real source would share, and goes against what the star herself has said. Gossip Cop can bust it.

According to the serial fabricators at HollywoodLife, Kardashian is so happy seeing Tristan Thompson with their daughter True that “she may not wait that long before adding another member to the family,” and a second pregnancy “may actually happen sooner than we think.” A so-called “source close to the Kardashians” is quoted as saying, “[Tristan is] an amazing father [and she] definitely wants more babies with him.”

As for whether the couple is “actively trying to get pregnant” again, the untraceable “source” supposedly leaks that Kardashian and Thompson “aren’t using any kind of contraception right now,” and will “leave it up to God as to whether they have a baby soon again, or not.” Editorializes the site, “It might be ‘sooner’ than later, all things considered.”

Really? Consider what the new mom herself has said on the subject. Less than a month ago, Kardashian told a Twitter follower that she’s not even thinking about having a second child yet, tweeting, “Not right now lol True is only 3 months old so give me some time lol.” Shortly after, Kardashian did an interview in which she acknowledged she wants more kids, but stressed, “Let my uterus shrink down again! I just don’t know if I’m ready to get pregnant again. It’s a lot.” She went on to stay, “I just don’t know when it’s going to be. I heard you should wait at least a year.”

Waiting “at least a year” certainly isn’t “ASAP.” And it stands to reason that if Kardashian wants to wait, as she said twice on the record, she is doing something to prevent pregnancy from happening again just yet. That the website wants readers to believe an actual source “close” to the reality star publicly revealed Kardashian isn’t “using any kind of contraception” is beyond far-fetched. If someone was so willing to share that, why haven’t other outlets reported the same?

Of course, this intensely private claim is coming from the same online publication that recently insisted Kardashian and Thompson were having “wild sex” while on vacation. Notably, other places didn’t report that, either. These are not scoops the site is obtaining. They are stories that are seemingly manufactured out of thin air. HollywoodLife was even transparently exposed as liars when it comes to Kardashian, Thompson and True earlier this year. Simply put, the blog can’t be trusted, and in this case, given that its contentions go against Kardashian’s own comments, it’s even more obvious that this “exclusive” was made-up.

(Getty Images)

Mila Kunis and Ashton Kutcher are fighting over having a third child, according to a wrong tabloid report. The story claims the couple is at odds because she doesn’t want more kids while he does. But Gossip Cop can reveal the truth.

“Mila & Ashton’s Marriage Crisis: Their Biggest Fight Yet,” reads a headline in NW. The magazine claims the relationship “may not last… if they don’t get on the same page about expanding their family.” It’s specifically alleged that Kutcher’s “desire to expand their brood ASAP is causing tension in the couple’s three-year marriage.”

The magazine maintains the “broody” Kutcher is “desperate for more kids,” a contention it bases on Life & Style, which previously quoted a supposed source as saying, “Ashton has always wanted three or four kids.” In contrast, NW highlights quotes from Kunis where she’s spoken about not wanting to have more children. The outlet further maintains that “clashing over babies is just the latest bump in the couple’s relationship.”

The publication uses that as an excuse to regurgitate old, debunked rumors, and even repeat recent fake news from Star about Kunis being caught in a “cheating scandal.” Significantly, what the tabloid doesn’t mention is that it claimed Kunis was pregnant with their third child back in February. NW even featured the headline, “Mila & Ashton’s Baby Announcement: ‘Yes, We’re Pregnant Again!’”

At the time, not only did a rep for the actress confirm to Gossip Cop that she wasn’t expecting, but we also pointed out that Kunis had said a year prior that she and Kutcher were “good” with two kids. Now the magazine is pretending it never made that pregnancy “announcement,” and alleging the couple is arguing over whether to have more children. But it’s irrational to suggest that Kunis has repeatedly spoken about not having another baby even though her husband doesn’t feel the same way. Why would Kunis publicly declare she’s done having kids if it’s actually still something Kutcher is pushing for?

Well, contrary to the outlet’s allegations, Kunis’ spokesperson tells us that “they are on the same page” when it comes to their family, and that the story is a “lie.” That’s hardly surprising, of course, given that the publication lied about the star being pregnant five months ago. It should also be noted that just last month Kunis said pregnancy and divorce rumors like these are “upsetting” to her and her family. NW is further contributing to the problem by writing about a “marriage crisis” that doesn’t actually exist.

(Getty Images)

Kris Jenner does not “force” Kardashian boyfriends to sign “100-page” non-disclosure agreements despite a report. Gossip Cop has learned the claim is doubly wrong: Not only are the alleged “documents” not 100 pages long, but we’re told they don’t even exist.

“KEEPING MUM: Kris Jenner ‘forces Kardashian boyfriends to sign 100-PAGE document promising to never speak badly about daughters before they’ve even been on a date,’” reads a headline from The Sun. According to the tabloid, the famous “momager” has a “watertight contract” that prohibits anyone who wants to date the Kardashian-Jenners from speaking negatively about them. “It’s essentially a non-disclosure agreement, usually around 100 pages long,” a so-called “insider” is quoted as saying.

Continues this untraceable source, “Basically they can’t sell stories on the relationship or speak badly about them in public.” It’s further alleged the NDAs establish copyrights over “any pics or videos taken during the relationship,” and are “also accompanied by a handwritten letter from Kris letting you know she will turn to the family’s team of lawyers should break the agreement [sic].”

“It goes without saying that if they break it, the Kardashians, E! and every company associated with them will blacklist you for life,” maintains the alleged tipster, who claims Jenner’s boyfriend, Corey Gamble, often delivers the purported “documents” to the would-be suitors. And how do Jenner’s famous daughters supposedly feel about this? “The girls know the deal… They can’t date anyone who hasn’t signed it,” asserts the unidentifiable snitch. The anonymous “insider” goes on, “The men have to sign before the first date. They do warn any potential dates — saying ‘sorry it’s just the way it is.’”

It is true that those who appear on “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” have to sign authorization forms allowing footage of them to be featured on the show. That’s why sometimes the episodes includes blurred faces: E! and the producers did not get signed authorization from those people. There was even confusion in 2014 when Andre Leon Talley was blurred out of Kim’s wedding episode, despite signing what he said was a “big release” form.

But never has anything been reported about such forms being 100 pages long. And in regards to this alleged boyfriend agreement, the paper tries to substantiate its narrative by contending that “over the years Kris has managed to prevent the likes of Lamar Odom, Kris Humphries and Tyga from bad-mouthing” the Kardashian-Jenner family. That’s actually not accurate.

In 2013, Kris Humphries dissed the Kardashians and their reality show during his appearance on “The Mindy Project.” While convincing one of the characters to return to work, he advised, “You don’t want to be like me, sitting at home, alone, Saturday nights, watching trashy reality TV shows. I’m not going to name which ones. Trust me, you’re better off over there.” And in 2015, Humphries took a swipe at the family when Bruce Jenner came out as transgender (before her transition to Caitlyn). “Man, I’m glad I got out when I did. #Gottadoyou,” he tweeted, though he later clarified that his hashtag was meant as support for the former Olympian.

Meanwhile, also in 2015, when Odom denied trying to ambush Khloe, he went off on the family, and more recently, Kim slammed Odom after he seemed to diss Khloe on a BET show. And in June, Odom confirmed that his upcoming book will address his marriage to Khloe. Kylie’s ex Tyga was even caught seemingly shading Kim a few months ago. Theoretically, had the men signed these NDAs as alleged, they would’ve been forbidden from doing all of this. So how come Jenner and her clan hasn’t taken legal action against them?

It seems only time the Kardashians have acknowledged an NDA is last year, when they suggested Blac Chyna was violating a legal agreement by speaking out against Rob Kardashian. In that instance, ABC News obtained a confidentiality agreement that Chyna had signed, in which she agreed not to “disclose, publicly or privately, any information which is in any way, fashion or manner related to, associated with or connected to the Kardashian family/Jenner family/Disick family/West family and/or their personal relationships, their business activities, plans, operations, finances or employees.” Images of the document showed its length was four pages, 96 less than what The Sun is alleging.

And when it comes to NDAs specifically for boyfriends, and even those who have yet to go on a date with Kardashian-Jenners, a spokesperson exclusively tells Gossip Cop that the publication’s claims are “false,” and that “no NDAs” are used at all. Perhaps that’s why there has never been a legal dust-up over one, like there was with Chyna just over a year ago.