It Ends With Us Movie Lawsuit: Countersuit, Settlement, Fees

The It Ends With Us lawsuit between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni ended in a May 2026 settlement in which Lively received no cash payment, after a federal judge had already dismissed Baldoni’s $400 million countersuit and pared Lively’s own case down to three surviving claims. A separate order in June 2026 required Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, to cover Lively’s legal fees under a California statute protecting survivors from retaliatory defamation suits.

What Blake Lively Alleged

Lively starred in and executive-produced the 2024 film adaptation of Colleen Hoover’s novel about domestic violence. Baldoni directed the film through Wayfarer Studios, the company he co-founded with investor Steve Sarowitz, and co-starred opposite Lively. Sony Pictures put in roughly $28 million and distributed the film.¹

According to Lively’s court filings, problems began during the first phase of filming, which started in May 2023. She alleged that Baldoni and lead producer Jamey Heath made inappropriate comments about her body, violated physical boundaries during intimate scenes, pushed for nudity against her wishes during a birth scene, and created a hostile work environment.²

Production paused during the 2023 industry strikes. Before returning, Lively’s attorney sent seventeen “Protections for Return to Production” that were formalized in a Contract Rider Agreement signed on January 19, 2024, by Heath on behalf of It Ends With Us Movie LLC, the special-purpose entity Wayfarer had set up in 2022 to produce the film. The rider required intimacy coordinators on set, nudity riders before filming intimate scenes, and a provision prohibiting retaliation against Lively for raising misconduct concerns.³

When the film opened on August 6, 2024, Lively declined to jointly promote it with Baldoni. She alleged that Baldoni’s team responded with a coordinated campaign to damage her reputation, hiring crisis communications specialist Melissa Nathan and working with publicist Jennifer Abel to seed negative coverage. Her complaint quoted subpoenaed text messages in which the publicists discussed planting stories about the “weaponization of feminism” and about Lively being difficult to work with. After a Daily Mail piece asking whether Lively would be “cancelled” ran in August 2024, Nathan allegedly texted Abel, “That’s why you hired me right? I’m the best.”⁴ A New York Times article that preceded the lawsuit cited a message attributed to Nathan stating, “You know we can bury anyone.”⁵

Lively filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department in December 2024 and a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York on December 31, 2024. Her Second Amended Complaint named eight defendants and raised thirteen causes of action, including sexual harassment under federal and California law, retaliation, breach of two contracts, false light invasion of privacy, defamation, and civil conspiracy.³

Baldoni’s $400 Million Countersuit

In January 2025, Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios sued back for $400 million, naming Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and their publicist Leslie Sloane along with her firm Vision PR. The countersuit alleged civil extortion, defamation, and invasion of privacy, claiming Lively’s side had threatened to withhold promotion of the film to seize creative control. Baldoni also filed a separate defamation action against The New York Times over its December 2024 article headlined “We Can Bury Anyone: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine.”⁶ Judge Lewis J. Liman consolidated both cases on January 30, 2025.⁷

On June 9, 2025, Judge Liman dismissed both actions. He ruled that the conduct Baldoni described as extortion amounted to “legally permissible hard bargaining or renegotiation of working conditions” under California law.⁷ On defamation, the court treated Baldoni as a public figure who needed to show “actual malice” under New York Times v. Sullivan, and found his arguments “circumstantial and lacked adequate foundation,” with the statements at issue not “provably false.”⁸

As to The Times, the judge applied the fair report privilege for reporting on judicial proceedings and found no evidence the paper had an “obvious motive to favor Lively’s version of events.”⁹ Baldoni was given until June 23, 2025, to amend certain claims but did not refile, and a final judgment on the countersuit was entered on October 31, 2025.⁶ The New York Times later filed its own action in New York state court in September 2025, seeking at least $150,000 in legal fees under the state’s anti-SLAPP law.¹⁰

How Lively’s Case Was Narrowed to Three Claims

On April 2, 2026, Judge Liman issued an extensive opinion dismissing ten of Lively’s thirteen claims. All of her sexual harassment allegations under federal and California law fell out. A central reason was the court’s determination that Lively was an independent contractor rather than an employee, which put her outside the reach of harassment and certain retaliation protections under Title VII and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.⁷ Some California claims also failed because the alleged conduct happened in New Jersey, outside that state’s reach.¹¹ Claims for defamation, civil conspiracy, false light invasion of privacy, and breach of the Actor Loanout Agreement were dismissed as well. The Loanout claim failed because the court found the parties never actually formed that contract.³

Three claims survived for trial:

Retaliation under California law against It Ends With Us Movie LLC and Wayfarer Studios.
Aiding and abetting retaliation against The Agency Group PR LLC, Melissa Nathan’s firm.
Breach of the Contract Rider Agreement against It Ends With Us Movie LLC.

The defense had argued the rider was non-binding because the longer Loanout Agreement was never executed. Judge Liman rejected that, finding the rider had “independent binding force” and that Lively’s return to set was adequate consideration.³ On retaliation, the judge acknowledged that parties are entitled to hire public relations and crisis management professionals, but said certain conduct by the defense “at least arguably crossed the line,” warranting a trial.¹¹

The May 2026 Settlement

Trial on the three surviving claims was scheduled for May 18, 2026. Two weeks out, on May 4, 2026, the parties announced a settlement. A joint statement from their attorneys said: “It is our sincere hope that this brings closure and allows all involved to move forward constructively and in peace, including a respectful environment online.”¹²

Terms became public in June 2026. Lively received no cash payment from the defendants. Both sides waived all appellate rights and agreed to end “all differences and disputes.”¹³ One issue was carved out of the deal: Lively’s pending motion for attorneys’ fees under California Civil Code Section 47.1, the Protecting Survivors from Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act.¹⁴

The Attorneys’ Fees Ruling

On June 12, 2026, Judge Liman granted Lively’s fees motion in a 47-page order, ruling that her sexual misconduct complaints had been made “without malice” and that she qualified as the prevailing defendant under Section 47.1. He ordered Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios to pay her legal fees, with the specific amount to be determined. The judge denied Lively’s separate request for compensatory and punitive damages under the same statute, ruling that Section 47.1 does not provide that mechanism and that she would need to file a formal counterclaim or independent lawsuit to pursue those.¹⁵¹⁶

Sony Pictures, which co-financed and distributed the film, was never named as a party in any of the lawsuits.³

1
People. Blake Lively Called ‘Terrorist’ by Sony Executive Amid It Ends With Us Drama
2
CBS News. Blake Lively, Justin Baldoni Settle It Ends With Us Lawsuit
3
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, Opinion and Order
4
Rolling Stone. It Ends With Us Lawsuit: Justin Baldoni Smear Campaign Blake Lively
5
The Sydney Morning Herald. Why Is Rebel Wilson’s Alleged Smear Campaigner So Familiar
6
ABC News. Justin Baldoni’s $400M Countersuit Against Blake Lively Ended by Judge
7
ABC News. Blake Lively, Justin Baldoni Legal Battle Timeline
8
First Amendment Encyclopedia. Wayfarer Studios, Justin Baldoni v. Blake Lively, The New York Times
9
ABC News. Justin Baldoni’s Lawsuit Against Blake Lively Dismissed by Federal Judge
10
People. Justin Baldoni Company Sued by New York Times Over Dropped Defamation Case Fees
11
BBC News. Blake Lively Justin Baldoni Legal Battle
12
ABC7 News. Blake Lively Justin Baldoni End Dispute in Settlement Ahead of Trial
13
The Oak Ridger. Blake Lively Justin Baldoni Settlement Agreement Revealed
14
Deadline. Blake Lively Settlement Details Justin Baldoni Defamation Suit
15
Courthouse News Service. Judge Awards Blake Lively Legal Fees in It Ends With Us Feud With Justin Baldoni
16
Deadline. Blake Lively Attorney Fees Justin Baldoni Defamation Suit