Blake Lively speaks out after winning Justin Baldoni lawsuit, declaring her determination to defend women’s rights following a federal judge‘s dismissal of the $400 million countersuit against her, Ryan Reynolds, their publicist Leslie Sloane, and The New York Times. The legal dispute, rooted in accusations of sexual harassment, defamation, and retaliation around the film “It Ends With Us,” has drawn attention in Hollywood and beyond for its intensity, public allegations, and implications for women in the workplace.
Blake Lively Responds to Legal Victory and Calls for Advocacy
Shortly after the dismissal of Justin Baldoni’s countersuit, Lively used her social media to reflect on the toll of litigating such high-profile accusations and her unwavering commitment to women’s rights and safety in professional environments. Acknowledging the personal and financial challenges of these legal battles, Lively expressed solidarity with women facing similar struggles who may not have her resources or public platform.
“Like so many others, I’ve felt the pain of a retaliatory lawsuit, including the manufactured shame that tries to break us,”
Lively wrote on Instagram, also stating,
“While the suit against me was defeated, so many don’t have the resources to fight back.”
She emphasized her renewed resolve to
“stand for every woman’s right to have a voice in protecting themselves.”
In her message, Lively extended appreciation to supporters, sharing,
“With love and gratitude for the many who stood by me. Many of you I know. Many of you I don’t. But I will never stop appreciating or advocating for you.”
Lawsuit Details and Judicial Dismissal
Baldoni’s suit alleged that Lively and her team orchestrated a plot that led to his removal from the “It Ends With Us” project, further accusing Lively, Reynolds, and Sloane of collaborating with The New York Times to defame him. Judge Lewis J. Liman found that Baldoni’s arguments failed to demonstrate wrongful extortion or defamation, stating the allegations mapped more closely to hard bargaining over employment terms than to unlawful behavior. As such, the federal court dismissed Baldoni’s counterclaims, providing his legal team until June 23 to amend their complaint if they choose.
The judge also addressed contentions involving The New York Times, concluding that the available information did not prove the outlet or the individual defendants acted with actual malice or substantial doubt about the truthfulness of the published article. A related $250 million suit by Baldoni against the Times was dismissed concurrently. Representatives for Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios have not commented on the dismissals so far.
Timeline of Complaints and Counter-Claims
The bitter dispute began in December 2024, when Lively filed a California Civil Rights Department (CRD) complaint against Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios, and several associates. In her filing, Lively accused Baldoni and colleagues of retaliation, claiming they launched an orchestrated digital and media campaign against her after she raised concerns about conduct on the film set. She alleged
“invasive, unwelcome, unprofessional and sexually inappropriate behavior”
by Baldoni and Wayfarer CEO Jamey Heath, contributing to substantial personal and professional harm. The complaint listed charges including sexual harassment, retaliation, breach of contract, emotional distress, and interference with economic advantage.
The New York Times promptly reported on Lively’s claims, referencing internal messages between Baldoni and his team included as evidence in the complaint. Lively told the newspaper,
“I hope that my legal action helps pull back the curtain on these sinister retaliatory tactics to harm people who speak up about misconduct, and helps protect others who may be targeted.”
Responses From Baldoni and Wayfarer
Baldoni and Wayfarer’s attorney Bryan Freedman rejected Lively’s allegations, labeling them “shameful” and “categorically false.” He argued that Lively’s claims were intended to fix her reputation and that Wayfarer merely responded to media inquiries as part of standard operations. Freedman stressed,
“The representatives of Wayfarer Studios still did nothing proactive nor retaliated, and only responded to incoming media inquiries to ensure balanced and factual reporting and monitored social activity.”
Impact on Hollywood and Reactions From Peers
The dispute quickly reverberated through the entertainment industry. William Morris Endeavor (WME), a major talent agency, ended their representation of Baldoni following media reports. Contrary to Baldoni’s assertion, WME insisted that neither Reynolds nor Lively, who are also represented by the agency, influenced their decision. A statement from WME read,
“Baldoni’s former representative was not at the Deadpool & Wolverine premiere nor was there any pressure from Reynolds or Lively at any time to drop Baldoni as a client.”
Other prominent voices within the cast and creative team of “It Ends With Us” publicly backed Lively. Author Colleen Hoover stated,
“@blakelively, you have been nothing but honest, kind, supportive and patient since the day we met. Thank you for being exactly the human that you are. Never change. Never wilt.”
Jenny Slate, a castmate, added,
“As Blake Lively’s castmate and friend, I voice my support as she takes action against those reported to have planned and carried out an attack on her reputation. Blake is a leader, loyal friend and a trusted source of emotional support for me and so many who know and love her. What has been revealed about the attack on Blake is terribly dark, disturbing, and wholly threatening. I commend my friend, I admire her bravery, and I stand by her side.”
Brandon Sklenar, also from the film, encouraged the public to review the complaint, and Lively’s “Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants” co-stars—America Ferrera, Alexis Bledel, and Amber Tamblyn—voiced their solidarity as well.
Ripple Effects: Staffing Changes and Additional Lawsuits
The controversy led to several departures and new lawsuits across parties involved. Liz Plank, co-host of The Man Enough Podcast with Baldoni and Heath, resigned shortly after Lively’s CRD complaint came to light, expressing her ongoing commitment to supporting people who hold others accountable for wrongdoing. Stephanie Jones, Baldoni’s former publicist, filed suit against Baldoni, Wayfarer, and others, alleging a coordinated effort to scapegoat her during the subsequent media storm and business fallout. The suit claimed,
“Defendants Abel and Nathan secretly conspired for months to publicly and privately attack Jones and Jonesworks, to breach multiple contracts and induce contractual breaches, and to steal clients and business prospects. Behind Jones’s back, they secretly coordinated with Baldoni and Wayfarer to implement an aggressive media smear campaign against Baldoni’s film co-star, and then used the crisis as an opportunity to drive a wedge between Jones and Baldoni, and to publicly pin blame for this smear campaign on Jones—when Jones had no knowledge or involvement in it.”
Lively’s attorneys confirmed that the contested text messages shared with The New York Times were obtained through a subpoena of Jonesworks, while Freedman, representing several defendants, criticized Jones for releasing private communications and signaled his intention to pursue legal action against her.
Escalation: Lawsuits Against The New York Times
By the end of December 2024, Baldoni, Wayfarer, Heath, Sarowitz, and associates sued The New York Times, alleging that the paper’s coverage of Lively’s CRD complaint amounted to libel and invasion of privacy. The plaintiffs denied all wrongdoing and claimed the Times relied almost exclusively on Lively’s perspective, arguing in court documents,
“Despite its claim to have ‘reviewed these along with other documents[,]’ the Times relied almost entirely on Lively’s unverified and self-serving narrative, lifting it nearly verbatim while disregarding an abundance of evidence that contradicted her claims and exposed her true motives.”
The lawsuit also accused Lively of conducting a smear campaign against them, though she denied this characterization. The Times responded that its reporting was responsible and meticulously sourced, stating,
“The role of an independent news organization is to follow the facts where they lead. Our story was meticulously and responsibly reported. It was based on a review of thousands of pages of original documents, including the text messages and emails that we quote accurately and at length in the article.”
Lively’s Federal Lawsuit and Defendants’ Counteractions
On the same day as the Times lawsuit, Lively filed an additional federal complaint against Baldoni, Wayfarer, and other named parties, restating charges of sexual harassment, retaliation, breach of contract, and emotional distress. Her attorneys dismissed the arguments raised in the Wayfarer lawsuit as “obviously false,” underlining that her complaints were factually substantiated and not a strategic ruse.
Legal Threats and Ongoing Hostility
Baldoni and his lawyers made clear their intent to continue pursuing Lively legally, with attorney Freedman indicating that more lawsuits were forthcoming.
“There are other bad actors involved, and make no mistake—this will not be the last lawsuit,”
court documents stated.
The public and media continued analyzing the case, including speculation that Ryan Reynolds, Lively’s husband, alluded to the conflict in his film “Deadpool & Wolverine” through parody. Baldoni’s attorney criticized this, saying,
“What I make of that is that if your wife is sexually harassed, you don’t make fun of Justin Baldoni. You don’t make fun of the situation. You take it very seriously. You file HR complaints. You raise the issue and you follow a legal process. What you don’t do is mock the person and turn it into a joke.”
Lively’s legal team pointed to ongoing “attacks” against her, emphasizing,
“Ms. Lively’s federal litigation before the Southern District of New York involves serious claims of sexual harassment and retaliation, backed by concrete facts. This is not a ‘feud’ arising from ‘creative differences’ or a ‘he said/she said’ situation. As alleged in Ms. Lively’s complaint, and as we will prove in litigation, Wayfarer and its associates engaged in unlawful, retaliatory astroturfing against Ms. Lively for simply trying to protect herself and others on a film set. And their response to the lawsuit has been to launch more attacks against Ms. Lively since her filing.”
Her lawyers warned against the tactic of “blame the victim,” arguing,
“Another classic tactic is to reverse the victim and offender, and suggest that the offender is actually the victim. These concepts normalize and trivialize allegations of serious misconduct.”
Baldoni’s lawyer responded,
“It is painfully ironic that Blake Lively is accusing Justin Baldoni of weaponizing the media when her own team orchestrated this vicious attack by sending the New York Times grossly edited documents prior to even filing the complaint.”
He maintained that they would
“release all of the evidence which will show a pattern of bullying and threats to take over the movie,”
alleging,
“Blake Lively used other people to communicate those threats and bully her way to get whatever she wanted. We have all the receipts and more.”
New Litigation and Evolving Allegations
On January 16, 2025, Baldoni, Heath, Wayfarer, and associates escalated the conflict by filing a lawsuit against Lively, Reynolds, Sloane, and Vision PR, claiming civil extortion, defamation, and unfair business interference. The filing alleged that Lively and Reynolds attempted to damage Baldoni’s reputation and career following negative publicity surrounding the film’s marketing.
Baldoni’s attorney, Freedman, said,
“Blake Lively was either severely misled by her team or intentionally and knowingly misrepresented the truth.”
In response, Lively’s counsel condemned the lawsuit as
“another chapter in the abuser playbook,”
noting,
“This is an age-old story: A woman speaks up with concrete evidence of sexual harassment and retaliation and the abuser attempts to turn the tables on the victim. This is what experts call DARVO. Deny. Attack. Reverse Victim Offender.”
Her team stressed that the evidence would confirm Sony requested Lively oversee the editing process and that the accusations of creative control were a distraction from the core issues.
Lively’s legal team further stated,
“Their response to sexual harassment allegations: she wanted it, it’s her fault. Their justification for why this happened to her: look what she was wearing. In short, while the victim focuses on the abuse, the abuser focuses on the victim. The strategy of attacking the woman is desperate, it does not refute the evidence in Ms. Lively’s complaint, and it will fail.”
Behind-The-Scenes Footage Complicates Narrative
The release of filmmaking outtakes by Baldoni’s attorneys was intended to disprove Lively’s characterizations of his behavior on set. They maintained that
“the scene in question was designed to show the two characters falling in love and longing to be close to one another. Both actors are clearly behaving well within the scope of the scene and with mutual respect and professionalism.”
Lively’s side, however, responded that the footage validated her claims.
“The video shows Ms. Lively leaning away and repeatedly asking for the characters to just talk. Any woman who has been inappropriately touched in the workplace will recognize Ms. Lively’s discomfort.”
They asserted that the moment was unscripted and lacked appropriate prior discussion or consent.
Pretrial Maneuvers: Gag Orders and More Revelations
Seeking to restrain pretrial publicity, Lively and Reynolds requested that Baldoni’s attorney Freedman be put under a gag order. The effort to prevent improper public comment came as both parties released recordings and documentation to the media and public. In late January 2025, a voice message from Baldoni to Lively surfaced online. In it, Baldoni referenced their collaboration and expressed admiration for Lively, Reynolds, and Taylor Swift, noting,
“We should all have friends like that aside from the fact that they’re two of the most creative people on the planet. The three of you guys together, it’s unbelievable.”
He also offered an apology, saying,
“I f–ked up. One thing you should know about me is that I will admit and apologize when I fail.”
The court has set the trial date between Lively and Baldoni for March 9, 2026.
Baldoni’s Lawsuits Expand and Online Campaigns Continue
Baldoni’s team amended their counterclaim in late January 2025 to formally add The New York Times as a defendant in their $400 million lawsuit. They accused Lively’s side of
“feeding falsehoods to the New York Times”
and alleged the newspaper selectively edited communications to mislead readers. Further, Baldoni’s legal team created a dedicated website to publish lawsuit details and present their side of the dispute, including text messages and a timeline of events. As part of his ongoing media response, Baldoni’s attorney stated his intention to make
“every single text message between the two”
public, reiterating,
“We want the truth to be out there. We want the documents to be out there. We want people to make their determination based on receipts.”
Lively Files Amended Complaint, Names Additional Witnesses
In February 2025, Lively’s attorneys submitted an amended complaint, indicating other women from the “It Ends With Us” production were prepared to testify about their discomfort regarding Baldoni’s conduct. The complaint asserted,
“Ms. Lively was not alone in complaining about Mr. Baldoni. The experiences of Ms. Lively and others were documented at the time they occurred starting in May of 2023. Importantly, and contrary to the entire narrative Defendants have invented, Mr. Baldoni acknowledged the complaints in writing at the time. He knew that women other than Ms. Lively also were uncomfortable and had complained about his behavior.”
The witnesses were unnamed due to
“dangerous climate of threats, harassment, and intimidation fueled by the Defendants’ retaliation campaign.”
Freedman, representing Baldoni, called the amended complaint “filled with unsubstantial hearsay,” arguing that the absence of named witnesses undermined the new allegations.
Moves to Exclude Parties and Bring in New Advisors
After being named in Baldoni’s suit for allegedly assisting in a “smear campaign,” Sloane, the publicist for Lively and Reynolds, filed for dismissal, with her lawyer arguing that she was “dragged” into the case as a distraction tactic. Meanwhile, Lively brought in former CIA Deputy Chief of Staff Nick Shapiro as a strategic advisor on legal communications. Shapiro’s experience includes roles at the CIA, Visa, Airbnb, and his own crisis management firm, and his recruitment signaled Lively’s intention to defend her reputation vigorously in the ongoing litigation.
The New York Times Seeks Dismissal and Wins Temporary Halt
The New York Times filed legal motions in February 2025 to be removed from Baldoni’s escalating suit. The newspaper’s counsel asserted that Baldoni’s team presented a
“one-sided tale that has garnered plenty of headlines”
and emphasized,
“The Times does not belong in this dispute.”
The federal judge overseeing the matter granted a temporary stay of discovery—pausing the obligation for parties to exchange documents—pending review of The Times’ motion. The court recognized,
“a strong showing that its motion to dismiss is likely to succeed on the merits,”
with the judge expressing that halting discovery would not cause unfair prejudice to Baldoni’s side.
In a statement following the judge’s decision, a New York Times spokesperson explained,
“We appreciate the court’s decision today, which recognizes the important First Amendment values at stake here. The court has stopped Mr. Baldoni from burdening The Times with discovery requests in a case that should never have been brought against.”
Significance and What Lies Ahead
The courtroom battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni has come to symbolize complex challenges surrounding workplace safety, reputation management, and the high stakes of sexual misconduct allegations in the entertainment sector. The case has prompted public statements from both parties, extensive media coverage, and significant reactions from colleagues, while legal strategies continue to play out through new filings, amended complaints, and motions in multiple jurisdictions. With a trial date set for March 2026 and numerous unresolved claims, the dispute’s outcome will likely impact the industry’s approach to harassment allegations, how public narratives are shaped, and the legal frameworks addressing such conflicts. As the proceedings unfold, the role of advocacy, media scrutiny, and institutional support for claimants remains under close observation.
