Chip And Joanna Gaines Fighting Over Money? News Chip And Joanna Gaines Fighting Over Money?
Kris Jenner, Kourtney Kardashian Named In Sexual Harassment Suit News Kris Jenner, Kourtney Kardashian Named In Sexual Harassment Suit
Kelly Ripa Refusing To Book The Same Guests As Drew Barrymore? News Kelly Ripa Refusing To Book The Same Guests As Drew Barrymore?
Report: Reese Witherspoon "Busted" With Another Man Celebrities Report: Reese Witherspoon "Busted" With Another Man

Sandra Bullock is not "secretly married" to photographer Bryan Randall, despite a new tabloid report. Gossip Cop can correct a magazine's claim about them having an under-the-radar wedding. We're told it's 100 percent untrue.

According to In Touch, it's believed that Bullock and Randall quietly have tied the knot. The tabloid notes that while the couple of nearly three years was out on a coffee run in Los Angeles on March 1, the photographer was spotted with a "wedding ring" on "that finger." The magazine maintains that "friends of the fiercely private actress" blabbed to the outlet that Bullock "slipped [the ring] on his finger." The so-called "friends" are further quoted as saying that it's not Bullock's "style to make a formal announcement, but she and Randall will "tell people when they're good and ready."

After that, the publication segues to how Bullock was previously married to Jesse James until she discovered his cheating ways. The article ends with a supposed "insider" asserting, "[Bullock] plays coy with the whole issue of marriage. After all she's been through, she feels like it's nobody business."

It should be abundantly clear that the outlet's source is no "insider" at all because if he or she doesn't actually know for sure whether Bullock is married. Also, another clue that the magazine's story is completely bogus is when it claims it learned Bullock "tied the knot" through "friends of the fiercely private actress." It they were truly "friends" who know she's "fiercely private," why would they share anything with a tabloid?

But the most glaring aspect of the magazine's story about Bullock being "secretly married" is that it has zero details whatsoever of her supposed wedding. Where were her nuptials and when? What did she and Randall wear when they allegedly exchanged vows? Was it a big or small wedding? Which celebrities were invited?

The reason the publication has no specifics is simple: Bullock and Randall are not married. It seems the whole article was fabricated because Randall was photographed wearing a ring (see below). The tabloid even features a picture of Bullock and Randall, with an arrow pointing to his hand and a caption that reads, "A wedding band?"

Sandra Bullock Married Bryan Randall

(BackGrid, In Touch)

But a photo of a guy with a ring doesn't mean he's married. Nor would we make assumptions based on Bullock not wearing a ring four days later at the Oscars (see above). That's why Gossip Cop fact-checked the tabloid's tale. We're told they're not wed, and a rep for the actress also says they didn't get married, secretly or otherwise.

Gossip Cop is not entirely surprised by the falsity of In Touch's story. Around a year and a half ago, we busted the tabloid when it wrongly maintained Bullock and Randall were engaged. Much like that tall tale, the latest about them being "secretly married" is also not true.

Our Verdict

Gossip Cop has determined this story is totally false.


Whatever Happened To Scarlett Johansson, Colin Jost's Summer Wedding?