Federal Judge Lewis Liman formally ended Justin Baldoni’s $400 million defamation lawsuit against Blake Lively on October 31, 2025, after Baldoni missed the deadline to file an amended complaint.
Lively’s attorneys called the ruling “a total victory and complete vindication” for the actress. The dismissal marks a significant milestone in the bitter legal battle between the It Ends With Us co-stars.
Origins of the Dispute
The legal conflict began in December 2024 when Lively filed a complaint with California’s Civil Rights Department accusing Baldoni of sexual harassment during filming and orchestrating a smear campaign afterward.
The lawsuit detailed inappropriate behavior on set including unwanted physical contact, discussions of pornography addiction, and showing her explicit videos without consent. These allegations shocked Hollywood and divided public opinion.
Baldoni’s Countersuit
In January 2025, Baldoni fired back with a $400 million countersuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and their publicist Leslie Sloane. The lawsuit alleged extortion, defamation, and invasion of privacy, claiming Lively hijacked creative control of the film using false harassment allegations.
Baldoni’s legal team portrayed the actress as orchestrating a calculated campaign to destroy his reputation and career.
The June Dismissal
Judge Liman first dismissed Baldoni’s lawsuit in June 2025, ruling that Lively’s sexual harassment allegations were protected under California’s AB 933, also known as the Protecting Survivors From Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act.
The law, enacted after the #MeToo movement, prevents accused individuals from retaliating against survivors through defamation lawsuits. Baldoni was given until October to file an amended complaint.
The Missed Deadline
Baldoni and his production company Wayfarer Studios failed to meet the October 17 deadline to file an amended complaint. When Judge Liman notified all parties about entering final judgment, only Lively responded, requesting the dismissal be finalized while keeping her motion for attorney’s fees active.
The judge granted her request, making the dismissal permanent unless appealed.
Legal Protections for Survivors
California’s AB 933, central to the case’s dismissal, was designed specifically to prevent weaponized defamation lawsuits against sexual harassment survivors. The law protects good-faith statements made in legal complaints and to the press about experiences of harassment and discrimination.
Equal Rights Advocates, which co-sponsored the bill, highlighted this case as demonstrating exactly why such protections are crucial.
On-Set Allegations
Lively’s original complaint detailed disturbing allegations including Baldoni improvising unwanted kissing during scenes, making comments about her weight, discussing his pornography addiction, and entering her trailer while she was topless.
She also alleged that producer Jamey Heath showed her a video of his fully nude wife giving birth without warning or consent. These claims painted a picture of a hostile work environment.
The January Meeting
In January during filming, a crucial meeting was held to address the hostile work environment. Ryan Reynolds attended as Lively’s chosen representative, and parties agreed to specific demands including no more descriptions of genitalia, mandatory intimacy coordinators, and no additional sex scenes beyond the approved script.
Despite these agreements, Lively claims Baldoni subsequently launched a retaliation campaign against her.
The Alleged Smear Campaign
Text messages obtained through subpoena revealed communications between Baldoni’s crisis PR expert Melissa Nathan discussing plans to damage Lively’s reputation. One message read “He wants to feel like she can be buried,” with Nathan responding “You know we can bury anyone”.
These messages became key evidence supporting Lively’s claims of orchestrated retaliation after she reported misconduct.
Ryan Reynolds’ Involvement
Baldoni’s lawsuit accused Ryan Reynolds of using his Hollywood power to destroy Baldoni’s career, including allegedly pressuring WME to drop him as a client.
However, WME explicitly denied these claims, stating Reynolds’ former agent wasn’t even present at the Deadpool & Wolverine premiere where the alleged confrontation supposedly occurred. Reynolds had rewritten one iconic rooftop scene for the film.
WME Drops Baldoni
Justin Baldoni was dropped by talent agency WME on December 21, 2024, just hours after Lively’s harassment allegations became public. While Baldoni claimed this resulted from pressure by Lively and Reynolds, WME firmly denied being influenced by the couple.
The decision dealt a significant blow to Baldoni’s career, as WME also represents major Hollywood talent including both Lively and Reynolds.
The New York Times Lawsuit
Baldoni simultaneously filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The New York Times for its December 2024 article detailing Lively’s allegations. The lawsuit accused the publication of using cherry-picked and altered communications stripped of context.
Judge Liman also dismissed this lawsuit, ruling the Times reviewed available evidence and didn’t act with actual malice required for defaming a public figure.
The Defamation Standard
Judge Liman’s ruling emphasized that public figures must prove statements were false, caused measurable harm, and were made with “actual malice”—meaning the speaker knew they were false or acted with reckless disregard for truth.
The court found Baldoni failed to show Reynolds, Sloane, or The Times “seriously doubted” Lively’s statements were true based on available information. This high bar for defamation protected those who reported on her allegations.
Attorney’s Fees and Damages
Under California’s AB 933, individuals who file retaliatory lawsuits can be ordered to pay the survivor’s attorney’s fees, plus treble damages and punitive damages. Lively’s legal team has requested these remedies against Baldoni, his production company, and associates.
The final amount remains pending before the judge, but could represent substantial financial consequences for filing what the court deemed an abusive lawsuit.
Public Reactions
After the June dismissal, Lively posted on Instagram about feeling “the pain of a retaliatory lawsuit, including the manufactured shame that tries to break us”. She expressed resolve to “stand for every woman’s right to have a voice” in protecting their safety and dignity.
Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman called Lively’s victory declaration “false,” insisting they had been allowed to amend four claims—but never filed them.
Box Office Success Despite Drama
Despite the behind-the-scenes turmoil, It Ends With Us became a massive box office hit, earning over $350 million worldwide against a $25 million budget. The film crossed $100 million domestically within its first week.
Industry analysts suggested the controversy actually increased public interest, making audiences more intrigued to see what sparked such dramatic conflict between the co-stars.
Career Impact on Baldoni
Beyond losing WME representation, Baldoni faced significant professional fallout from the allegations. His public image as a feminist ally advocating against toxic masculinity was severely damaged.
By allowing the appeal deadline to pass without filing an amended complaint, Baldoni effectively ended his own legal challenge, leaving the June dismissal and Lively’s court victory fully intact.
Lively’s Lawsuit Moves Forward
While Baldoni’s countersuit is permanently dismissed, Lively’s original harassment and retaliation lawsuit against him remains active.
The case is scheduled for trial in March 2026, where a jury will determine whether her claims of sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliatory smear campaign move forward. This means the core dispute over Baldoni’s alleged misconduct will still be litigated.
Broader #MeToo Implications
Legal experts view this case as a critical test of post-#MeToo protections for survivors who speak out. California’s AB 933 represents a legislative response to the increasing use of retaliatory defamation lawsuits designed to silence and intimidate accusers.
The successful dismissal of Baldoni’s $400 million suit demonstrates these protections can effectively shield survivors from weaponized litigation meant to punish them for reporting misconduct.
What Happens Next
Baldoni retains the right to appeal the dismissal after the court rules on Lively’s attorney’s fees motion. However, his failure to file an amended complaint suggests he may not pursue further legal action.
The spotlight now shifts to Lively’s March 2026 trial against Baldoni, where allegations of harassment, retaliation, and coordinated reputation destruction will face full judicial scrutiny. The outcome could set important precedents for workplace harassment cases.