The Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni Legal Battle
In late 2024 and early 2025, a high-profile legal dispute unfolded between actors Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, stemming from allegations of misconduct on the set of the film It Ends With Us. The conflict escalated into a series of legal actions, culminating in the recent dismissal of Baldoni’s $400 million countersuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, their publicist Leslie Sloane, and The New York Times.
Background of the Lawsuit
The legal saga began when Blake Lively, who starred alongside Justin Baldoni in It Ends With Us, filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department in late 2024. Lively accused Baldoni, the film’s director and co-star, as well as its lead producer Jamey Heath, of sexual harassment and retaliation. According to her filing, Baldoni and Heath violated her physical boundaries and made inappropriate comments during the production of the film, which is an adaptation of Colleen Hoover’s bestselling novel. Lively further alleged that Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, launched a retaliatory smear campaign against her after she raised concerns about the alleged misconduct.
This complaint served as the foundation for Lively’s legal action, naming Baldoni, Heath, Wayfarer Studios, and several public relations executives as defendants. The allegations painted a picture of a hostile work environment on the set of a film that had already garnered significant public attention due to its sensitive subject matter—domestic abuse—and the star power of its cast.
Justin Baldoni’s Response: A $400 Million Countersuit
In January 2025, Justin Baldoni fired back with a $400 million lawsuit filed in federal court in New York. The suit targeted Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds, their publicist Leslie Sloane, and The New York Times, accusing them of defamation, extortion, and other claims. Baldoni alleged that Lively’s accusations were fabricated as part of a scheme to damage his reputation and seize creative control of It Ends With Us. He claimed that the defendants had orchestrated a coordinated effort to portray him as a villain, with The New York Times amplifying Lively’s narrative through a defamatory article.
Baldoni’s lawsuit sought substantial damages, arguing that the allegations had caused irreparable harm to his career and personal life. The inclusion of Reynolds, Sloane, and The New York Times as defendants suggested that Baldoni believed a broader conspiracy was at play, one that extended beyond Lively herself.
Dismissal of the Lawsuit
On June 9, 2025, U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed Baldoni’s $400 million lawsuit in its entirety, delivering a significant victory to Lively and the other defendants. The ruling came after a thorough review of the legal arguments and evidence presented by both sides.
Key Elements of the Dismissal
Dismissal of Claims Against Lively: The judge ruled that Lively’s accusations of sexual harassment and misconduct were legally protected under California law, effectively barring Baldoni’s defamation and retaliation claims against her.
Dismissal of Claims Against The New York Times: The court found that the newspaper’s reporting on Lively’s allegations was within its journalistic rights and showed no evidence of malice or reckless disregard for the truth.
Dismissal of Claims Against Reynolds and Sloane: Statements made by Ryan Reynolds, including calling Baldoni a “sexual predator,” were deemed consistent with Lively’s protected complaint, and Sloane’s involvement did not meet the threshold for liability.
The dismissal was a comprehensive rejection of Baldoni’s countersuit, though the judge granted him until June 23, 2025, to refile certain claims related to interference with contracts, leaving a narrow window for potential future action.
Why the Lawsuit Was Dismissed
The dismissal hinged on several legal principles and findings, which the court outlined in its ruling. Below are the primary reasons why Baldoni’s lawsuit did not survive judicial scrutiny:
1. Legal Protection Under California Law
California Civil Code Section 47.1, enacted in 2023 through Assembly Bill 933, provides robust protections for individuals who report sexual harassment or misconduct. This statute shields such reports from retaliatory lawsuits, including defamation claims, unless there is clear evidence of malice or falsity. Judge Liman determined that Lively’s complaint to the California Civil Rights Department fell under this protection. As a result, Baldoni’s attempt to sue her for defamation was legally untenable, as her allegations were deemed a protected exercise of her rights.
2. Insufficient Evidence of Defamation
Baldoni’s defamation claims against Lively, Reynolds, Sloane, and The New York Times required proof that the defendants knowingly made false statements with malicious intent. The judge found no such evidence:
Lively and Reynolds: Lively’s allegations were based on her firsthand experiences, and Reynolds’ statements aligned with her protected complaint. The court ruled that Reynolds had no reason to doubt the truth of his wife’s claims, negating defamation liability.
The New York Times: The newspaper’s reporting was based on Lively’s legal filing and other available evidence. The judge noted that the publication “had no obvious motive to favor Lively’s version of events” and acted within journalistic standards, even if its tone was dramatized.
3. Lack of Evidence for Extortion or Conspiracy
Baldoni’s allegations of extortion and a coordinated smear campaign were dismissed due to a lack of substantiating evidence. The judge found no credible indication that Lively, Reynolds, Sloane, or The New York Times had manipulated the media environment or engaged in unlawful conduct against Baldoni. Instead, the court viewed Lively’s actions as a legitimate response to alleged workplace misconduct.
4. First Amendment Considerations
In dismissing the claims against The New York Times, the judge emphasized the newspaper’s First Amendment rights to report on matters of public interest. The article in question, while potentially damaging to Baldoni, was rooted in Lively’s legal complaint—a document of public record—and did not cross the legal threshold for defamation.
Reactions to the Dismissal
The dismissal elicited starkly different responses from the two camps:
Blake Lively’s Team: Lively’s attorneys, Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb, hailed the ruling as a “total victory and complete vindication” for Lively, Reynolds, Sloane, and The New York Times. They underscored that the decision upheld Lively’s right to speak out about alleged misconduct without facing retaliatory litigation.
Justin Baldoni’s Team: As of the latest updates, Baldoni’s legal team has not issued a public statement on the dismissal. The silence may reflect a strategic pause as they consider whether to refile the remaining claims by the June 23 deadline.
What’s Next: The Possibility of Refiling
While the dismissal closed the door on Baldoni’s defamation and extortion claims, the judge’s allowance for refiling certain contract-related claims keeps the case alive, albeit in a limited capacity. Baldoni has until June 23, 2025, to submit an amended complaint addressing interference with contracts—claims that were not fully resolved in the initial ruling. Whether he chooses to pursue this option remains uncertain, but it suggests that the legal battle may not be entirely over.
The dismissal of Justin Baldoni’s $400 million lawsuit against Blake Lively and others represents a pivotal moment in a contentious legal dispute that has unfolded in the public eye. The court’s ruling, grounded in California’s protective laws for misconduct allegations and a lack of evidence supporting Baldoni’s claims, has shifted the narrative in Lively’s favor. For now, the dismissal stands as a testament to the legal safeguards in place for individuals reporting harassment, as well as the high bar for proving defamation in such cases.
As the June 23 deadline approaches, all eyes will be on Baldoni to see if he opts to refile his remaining claims or if the parties seek a resolution outside the courtroom. Regardless of the next steps, this case underscores the challenges of addressing workplace misconduct allegations in the entertainment industry, particularly when they involve prominent figures and attract widespread media scrutiny.