A federal judge has ordered Justin Baldoni’s production company, Wayfarer Studios, to pay Blake Lively’s legal fees after dismissing his $400 million defamation lawsuit against her, marking a rare legal victory for a sexual harassment accuser under California’s 2024 anti-retaliation law. The ruling leaves open the possibility for Lively to pursue additional damages through separate legal action, while Baldoni’s team has remained silent on the decision.
How the Court Ruled: Legal Fees, No Damages
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman reported by The Hollywood Reporter grants Lively her attorney fees—a victory under California’s Civil Code Section 47.1, designed to protect survivors from retaliatory lawsuits—but denies her request for compensatory or punitive damages. The law, which went into effect in 2024, allows prevailing defendants in such cases to recover costs, though the court clarified that damages must be sought through other legal avenues, such as an independent lawsuit or counterclaim. “Compensatory and punitive damages do not fall within that exception,” Liman wrote, emphasizing the statute’s narrow scope.
Lively’s legal team, led by attorneys Michael Gottlieb and Esra Hudson, called the decision a triumph for survivors. “Today’s ruling makes it clear that Ms. Lively brought her claims in good faith, that there was no evidence she acted with malice, and that she is the prevailing defendant under Section 47.1,” they stated in a release shared with Variety. The team added that the ruling underscores how the law can be used to “hold accountable those who weaponize online attacks and retaliatory lawsuits to intimidate and silence survivors.” The settlement between Lively and Baldoni, reached in May, preserved her right to seek additional damages, though no monetary compensation was part of the original agreement.
“Blake Lively won her motion under Civil Code Section 47.1. Today’s ruling makes it clear that Ms. Lively brought her claims in good faith, that there was no evidence she acted with malice, and that she is the prevailing defendant.”
The Long Road to Settlement: A Timeline of the Legal Battle
2024: Lively accused Baldoni of sexual harassment on the set of It Ends With Us, a film he directed. She also alleged retaliation after she reported misconduct.
January 2025: Baldoni countersued Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, for defamation and extortion, arguing her claims were fabricated to seize control of the film. He also sued The New York Times over an article about a Hollywood smear campaign.
May 2026: The two parties settled their dispute just weeks before trial, with terms kept confidential. No money changed hands, but Lively’s legal fees remained unresolved.
June 12, 2026: Judge Liman rules Lively is entitled to attorney fees but denies her request for additional damages, leaving the door open for further legal action.
The case began as a high-profile clash between two of Hollywood’s most visible figures. Lively’s allegations, which she made public in 2024, centered on claims of harassment and retaliation during the production of It Ends With Us, a film based on the bestselling novel by Colleen Hoover. Baldoni, who also starred in the movie, vehemently denied the accusations, framing Lively’s claims as a calculated effort to undermine his reputation and control the project. His countersuit included allegations that Lively and Reynolds had orchestrated a smear campaign to bury his career.
Photo: NBC News
The legal battle dragged on for nearly two years, with nearly 1,500 docket entries as both sides filed motions and counter-motions. The sheer scale of the litigation—highlighted by The Hollywood Reporter—underlined the stakes. By the time the case settled, it had become a test case for how California’s anti-retaliation laws would be applied in defamation disputes involving sexual harassment allegations.
What This Means for Survivors—and Hollywood’s Legal Landscape
The ruling is a significant win for survivors navigating retaliatory lawsuits, but it also sets a precedent that could shape how similar cases are handled in the future. California’s Civil Code Section 47.1, which Lively invoked, was designed to shield accusers from lawsuits filed in response to their reports of harassment or assault. However, the judge’s decision to deny damages—while awarding fees—suggests the law’s protections may not extend as far as some advocates had hoped.
Blake Lively asking Justin Baldoni to pay legal fees after settlement
Legal experts note that the ruling leaves ambiguity about whether survivors can seek broader compensation through other legal avenues. “It leaves the door open” to Lively pursuing damages “by other means (like an independent lawsuit or a counterclaim),” Liman wrote, as NBC News reported. This could set a precedent for future cases, where survivors might need to file separate actions to recover full costs.
“It instead establishes a narrow exception to the usual litigation process for a specific and limited kind of relief.”
—U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman, on the scope of Civil Code Section 47.1
The case also raises questions about how production companies and studios will handle harassment allegations moving forward. Wayfarer Studios, Baldoni’s production company, has not responded to requests for comment, but the legal outcome could influence how studios approach internal investigations and public responses to misconduct claims. For Lively, the ruling is a partial vindication—but the fight may not be over. Her legal team has made clear that she intends to explore further avenues for compensation, potentially setting the stage for another round of litigation.
The Next Chapter: What Happens Now?
With the legal fees now ordered to be paid by Wayfarer Studios, the focus shifts to how much Lively will ultimately recover. Her legal team will submit a detailed breakdown of their hourly rates and the time spent on the case, which could result in a substantial bill given the high-profile nature of the litigation. The exact amount remains unknown, but the involvement of top-tier attorneys like Gottlieb and Hudson suggests the fees could be in the millions.
Photo: Variety
Baldoni’s silence on the ruling is notable. While Lively’s team has celebrated the decision as a victory for survivors, Baldoni has not issued a public statement. His legal team’s decision not to appeal the dismissal of his lawsuit—part of the settlement agreement—suggests they may be bracing for further legal challenges from Lively. The door remains open for her to pursue additional damages, either through a new lawsuit or as part of an existing case.
For Hollywood, the case serves as a cautionary tale about the personal and professional risks of high-stakes legal battles. The public fallout from the dispute has already had consequences: It Ends With Us, which Baldoni directed, received mixed reviews and underperformed at the box office. The legal drama has also overshadowed Lively’s career, with some industry observers questioning whether the controversy will linger.
Yet, for survivors of harassment and retaliation, the ruling offers a glimmer of hope. While the law may not provide full compensation, it does create a pathway for accusers to hold powerful figures accountable—even if the process is arduous and the outcomes uncertain. As Lively’s attorneys noted, the case demonstrates how laws like Section 47.1 can be used to “hold accountable those who weaponize online attacks and retaliatory lawsuits.” The question now is whether this precedent will encourage more survivors to come forward—or whether it will simply embolden defendants to fight back even harder.
One thing is clear: the legal battle between Lively and Baldoni is far from over. The next chapter may unfold in courtrooms rather than headlines, but the stakes—both personal and professional—could not be higher.
Senior Editor, Entertainment
Marina is a celebrated pop culture columnist and recipient of multiple media awards. She curates engaging stories about film, music, television, and celebrity news, always with a fresh and authoritative voice.
