Lively v. Baldoni Entertainment Lawsuit: Countersuit and Fee Award

The Lively v. Baldoni lawsuit was a federal case in which actor Blake Lively accused her It Ends with Us director and co-star Justin Baldoni of sexual harassment on set and of orchestrating a retaliatory smear campaign; Baldoni fired back with a $400 million defamation countersuit that was dismissed, and the two sides settled in May 2026, with the court later ordering Baldoni to pay Lively’s attorneys’ fees.¹

Lively filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department on December 20, 2024, and a formal federal complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on December 31, 2024. The suit named Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios CEO Jamey Heath, Wayfarer co-founder Steve Sarowitz, Wayfarer Studios itself, and several public-relations consultants. It was assigned to Judge Lewis J. Liman.²

What Lively Alleged

Lively’s complaint described two distinct wrongs: harassment during filming, and a coordinated campaign to damage her reputation once she raised concerns about it.

On-Set Conduct

According to the filing, Baldoni improvised physical intimacy during scenes without prior consent or the involvement of an intimacy coordinator, added graphic sexual content to the script unilaterally, and repeatedly questioned Lively about her sex life. The complaint alleged that Heath entered Lively’s makeup trailer uninvited while she was undressed or breastfeeding, and that both men pressured her to simulate full nudity during a birth scene despite no contractual or script requirement.³

Lively said she asked for specific workplace protections, including no further showing of nude images, no discussion of sexual topics in her presence, and no inquiries about her weight or references to her deceased father. Baldoni’s attorney, Bryan Freedman, called the allegations “categorically false.”⁴

The Alleged Smear Campaign

The complaint quoted thousands of pages of internal messages obtained through subpoena. In an August 2024 exchange, a publicist working with Baldoni’s team wrote to crisis PR specialist Melissa Nathan that Baldoni “wants to feel like she can be buried.” Nathan and publicist Jennifer Abel later discussed putting a “social combat plan into motion.”⁵

Unsealed emails described a “social and digital mitigation” plan whose stated goal was to “execute all without fingerprints” by monitoring forums and “starting threads with theories the team approves of.” The plan’s architect, digital strategist Jed Wallace, was reportedly hired at $30,000 per month for three months, and Heath told a colleague he had retained a crisis management team for $9 million.⁶ After the campaign took hold, Abel wrote: “The narrative online is so freaking good and fans are still sticking up for Justin… I see this as a total success.”⁵ Baldoni’s defense later shifted from denying the smears to characterizing the actions as legitimate crisis communications taken in self-defense.⁷

Baldoni’s $400 Million Countersuit and Its Dismissal

On January 16, 2025, Baldoni sued Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and their publicist Leslie Sloane for $400 million, alleging defamation and civil extortion. The suit claimed Lively’s allegations were fabricated and that she and Reynolds had used their celebrity to destroy Baldoni’s career.⁸ Against Reynolds specifically, Baldoni alleged that Reynolds had called him a “sexual predator” to a WME executive, rewritten a scene without authorization, and mocked him through the “Nicepool” character in Deadpool & Wolverine. Reynolds’s team characterized the claims as “thin-skinned outrage” without a legal basis.⁹

Lively and Reynolds moved to dismiss in March 2025, invoking California’s Protecting Survivors From Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act (AB 933), signed into law in October 2023, which shields individuals who report sexual harassment from retaliatory defamation lawsuits so long as the statements were made without actual malice.¹⁰

Judge Liman granted the motions on June 9, 2025, ruling that Lively’s harassment allegations were legally protected and that sharing the complaint with The New York Times was covered by fair-report privilege. Sloane was dismissed with prejudice. Baldoni was given until October 17, 2025, to refile amended claims narrowed to contract interference.¹¹ Baldoni and Wayfarer missed that deadline, and Judge Liman finalized the dismissal at Lively’s request in November 2025.¹²

Which of Lively’s Claims Survived

On April 2, 2026, Judge Liman issued a sweeping ruling that dismissed most of Lively’s original claims. Her Title VII federal civil-rights allegations and her California Labor Code whistleblower claims were tossed. The sexual harassment claims themselves were held legally insufficient because filming took place in New Jersey rather than California, and because Lively’s status as an independent contractor barred certain statutory protections.¹³

Three claims survived and were set for a May 18, 2026 trial:

Retaliation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The court held that FEHA applies to independent contractors and that the alleged retaliatory campaign was orchestrated from California.¹⁴
Aiding and abetting retaliation against The Agency Group PR.¹⁴
Breach of a signed Contract Rider Agreement containing an anti-retaliation clause, against the production entity It Ends With Us Movie LLC.¹⁴

Judge Liman wrote that while an accused party is entitled to defend its reputation through public relations, “there comes a point where the accused stops simply defending him or herself and starts taking action that a reasonable jury could view as retaliation.”¹

The Settlement and Fee Award

The case never went to trial. On May 4, 2026, Lively, Baldoni, and Wayfarer Studios signed a settlement agreement, and a formal notice was filed in federal court on May 7. Lively received no cash payment. The agreement required both sides to end “all differences and disputes,” waive appellate rights, and issue a joint public statement.¹⁵

One issue was carved out of the deal: Lively’s pending motion for attorneys’ fees, treble damages, and punitive damages under California Civil Code Section 47.1, the same statute that had defeated Baldoni’s countersuit. Both sides agreed to leave that motion in place and irrevocably waived any right to appeal the court’s ruling on it.¹⁶

On June 12, 2026, Judge Liman ordered Baldoni to pay Lively’s attorneys’ fees but denied her request for additional compensatory or punitive damages. That ruling closed the case.¹⁵ In their joint statement, the parties said: “We remain firmly committed to workplaces free of improprieties and unproductive environments. It is our sincere hope that this brings closure and allows all involved to move forward constructively and in peace.”¹

Other Lawsuits That Came Out of the Dispute

Several related cases traveled alongside the main action.

Baldoni v. The New York Times. On December 31, 2024, Baldoni, Wayfarer, Nathan, and Abel filed a $250 million libel and false-light suit against The New York Times over the December 21, 2024 article “We Can Bury Anyone: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine,” accusing the paper of relying on “cherry-picked” communications.¹⁷ Judge Liman dismissed those claims on June 9, 2025. The Times then filed an anti-SLAPP action in New York state court on September 30, 2025, seeking to recover at least $150,000 in fees and costs.¹⁸

Jones v. Abel. Baldoni’s former publicist Stephanie Jones and her firm Jonesworks sued Abel, Nathan, Baldoni, and Wayfarer for breach of contract and defamation in December 2024. The case was transferred to the Southern District of New York and also assigned to Judge Liman, and remained active with completed discovery as of early 2026.¹⁹ Jones’s forensic analysis of anonymous defamatory websites allegedly traced their creation back to Nathan and Wallace.²⁰

Wallace v. Lively. Jed Wallace sued Lively for defamation in the Western District of Texas in February 2025. Lively moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the case was terminated in November 2025. Wallace’s claims against Lively in the main New York case had already been dismissed on the same grounds.²¹

1
The Hollywood Reporter. Blake Lively Justin Baldoni Settle Lawsuit
2
CourtListener. Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC Docket
3
Newsweek/Court Filing. Blake Lively Complaint Against Justin Baldoni
4
ABC News. Blake Lively Sues Justin Baldoni Over Alleged Sexual Misconduct
5
The New York Times. We Can Bury Anyone: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine
6
NewsNation. Blake Lively’s Team Cites Emails as Proof of Smear Campaign
7
Deadline. Blake Lively Justin Baldoni Smear Campaign Allegation
8
ABC News. Justin Baldoni Sues Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds
9
People. Ryan Reynolds Slams Justin Baldoni Thin-Skinned Outrage Over Nicepool
10
Los Angeles Times. Blake Lively Moves to Dismiss Justin Baldoni Countersuit
11
CNN. Blake Lively Justin Baldoni Countersuit Dismissed
12
Los Angeles Times. Justin Baldoni Blake Lively Countersuit Ends
13
BBC News. Blake Lively Lawsuit Against Justin Baldoni
14
U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, Opinion and Order
15
USA Today. Blake Lively Justin Baldoni Settlement Agreement Revealed
16
Deadline. Blake Lively Settlement Details Justin Baldoni
17
Good Morning America. Justin Baldoni Files Lawsuit Against New York Times
18
Courthouse News Service. NY Times Sues Baldoni’s Production Company to Recoup Costs
19
CourtListener. Jones v. Abel Docket
20
The Hollywood Reporter. Blake Lively Justin Baldoni Feud Secret Smear Machine
21
CourtListener. Wallace v. Lively Docket