Court Orders Justin Baldoni to Pay Blake Lively’s Attorney Fees in Final ‘It Ends With Us’ Ruling
A federal judge has ruled that Justin Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, must pay Blake Lively’s attorney fees, delivering a partial victory to the actress in the final chapter of their protracted legal battle. The decision, handed down on June 12, 2026, by U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman, resolves the last outstanding issue after the two “It Ends With Us” co-stars reached a settlement last month, just weeks before a highly anticipated trial was set to begin in New York.
Judge Liman determined that Lively is entitled to recover her defense costs under a 2023 California law designed to protect sexual abuse accusers from retaliatory defamation lawsuits. However, the judge denied Lively’s request for triple damages and punitive damages, ruling that those remedies are not available under federal procedural rules. The order marks a significant legal conclusion to a dispute that has captivated Hollywood and the public for more than two years.
Under the terms of the settlement reached in May, both parties agreed to be bound by Liman’s ruling on the fee motion and waived their rights to appeal. Lively’s legal team, led by high-profile attorneys Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb, celebrated the outcome, stating that the 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 California Civil Code Section 47.1.
What the Ruling Means
The court will now assess the exact amount of legal fees Lively is owed. Her lawyers are expected to submit a detailed breakdown of hourly rates and total hours worked on the case. Given the caliber of Lively’s legal representation—including heavyweight litigators who command premium rates—the final bill could be substantial. The ruling specifically applied the Protecting Survivors from Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act, a California statute that took effect in 2024, which aims to shield victims of sexual harassment and assault when they report misconduct, provided they had a reasonable basis for their claims.
In a statement following the ruling, Hudson and Gottlieb emphasized that the statute provides “a path for survivors to hold accountable those who weaponize online attacks and retaliatory lawsuits to intimidate and silence survivors.”
The Background: A Legal War That Almost Went to Trial
The legal saga began in late 2024, when Lively accused Baldoni, who also directed the 2024 film adaptation of Colleen Hoover’s novel, of sexually harassing her on set. She further alleged that Baldoni and his allies retaliated against her for complaining by orchestrating an online whisper campaign designed to tarnish her reputation. Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios denied the allegations and filed a $400 million defamation lawsuit against Lively, accusing her of manufacturing false claims of harassment in order to seize control of the film.
Lively’s counterclaims and Baldoni’s defamation suit set the stage for a bitter, highly publicized legal confrontation. The case drew widespread media attention, not only because of the star power involved but also due to the broader implications for workplace accountability in Hollywood.
Dismissal of Baldoni’s Lawsuit
A turning point came a year ago when Judge Liman dismissed Baldoni’s defamation lawsuit, ruling that Lively’s allegations were protected under the litigation privilege. That decision effectively gutted the core of Baldoni’s case and allowed Lively to pursue her motion for attorney fees, triple damages, and punitive damages under California law. The motion was fully briefed and awaiting a ruling when the parties reached a global settlement in May 2026.
In a striking development, the settlement did not include any monetary compensation for Lively. Instead, both sides agreed to walk away from the trial, with Baldoni waiving his right to appeal the dismissal of his defamation suit. The only unresolved issue was Lively’s fee motion, which the settlement left open for judicial determination.
The Court’s Reasoning: A Narrow Exception
In his ruling, Judge Liman explained that the California law “does not create an end run around the entire set of carefully crafted federal procedural rules designed to protect the rights of the parties.” He added that the statute “establishes a narrow exception to the usual litigation process for a specific and limited kind of relief,” and that “compensatory and punitive damages do not fall within that exception.”
This distinction is critical. While Lively succeeded in recovering her legal fees—a significant financial burden in any high-stakes litigation—she was denied the more aggressive remedies she had sought. The ruling underscores the limits of state-level anti-SLAPP-like protections when applied in federal court, and it highlights the careful balance courts must strike between protecting accusers and respecting procedural boundaries.
Legal experts have noted that the outcome could set a precedent for similar cases, especially those involving the intersection of sexual harassment allegations and retaliatory defamation claims. The decision reinforces the availability of fee-shifting as a tool for defendants who prevail against what courts determine to be meritless retaliation suits, but it stops short of allowing punitive awards that could further deter such lawsuits.
Blake Lively’s Return to Public Life
In the days following the settlement, Lively has largely stayed out of the spotlight, but a recent Instagram post has drawn attention. On June 9, the actress shared a reflective message, writing: “I believe it is a responsibility to myself—to not waste my precious life.” She continued with a philosophical tone, describing the “immense hallways of time and of space” and emphasizing her desire to experience life fully. While she did not directly reference the legal proceedings, the timing of the post was widely interpreted as a signal that she is moving forward from the courtroom drama.
Lively has also been seen enjoying personal time with her husband, actor Ryan Reynolds. The couple was photographed on a date night in New York City, where Reynolds gave Lively a piggyback ride—a moment that quickly went viral. Throughout the legal ordeal, Reynolds has been a vocal supporter of his wife. In an April appearance on Today’s Sunday Sitdown Live, he said, “Really, without getting into too much, I have never in my life been more proud of my wife.”
A Public Relations Battle
The legal conflict was matched by a fierce public relations battle. Lively’s team argued that Baldoni’s defamation suit was a retaliatory weapon designed to silence her, while Baldoni’s camp maintained that Lively had manipulated the narrative to gain control of the film’s production. The case became a flashpoint in the broader conversation about how the entertainment industry handles accusations of misconduct and the legal mechanisms available to protect those who come forward.
Broader Implications: A Precedent for Survivors?
The final ruling in the Lively-Baldoni case has significant implications beyond the personal fortunes of the two stars. Legal analysts say the decision demonstrates the potential effectiveness of California’s Protecting Survivors from Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act, which was signed into law in 2023 and went into effect in 2024. The statute is one of several state-level efforts to curb the use of defamation lawsuits as a tool to intimidate and retaliate against individuals who report sexual misconduct.
By ordering Baldoni to pay Lively’s attorney fees, the court has sent a clear message that such retaliatory lawsuits carry financial risks for plaintiffs who bring them without sufficient legal grounding. This could encourage more accusers to come forward, knowing that the legal system provides a mechanism to recover defense costs if they are targeted by a defamation claim that is ultimately dismissed.
However, the denial of punitive and treble damages also highlights the limitations of these protections. Without the threat of enhanced damages, some critics argue, wealthy defendants may still find it worthwhile to file marginal defamation suits as a harassment tactic, even if they ultimately lose. The balance between deterrence and due process remains a contested area of law.
The Cost of Litigation
The Lively-Baldoni case is a reminder of the staggering costs associated with high-profile litigation. Lively’s legal team, which included partners at major law firms, likely billed millions of dollars in fees over the course of the two-year dispute. While the exact amount will be determined in the coming weeks, the court’s decision ensures that Lively will not have to bear that burden herself. For Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios, the financial impact could be significant, especially when combined with the legal costs they incurred in mounting their defense of the defamation suit.
What’s Next?
With the attorney fee ruling now in place, the case is effectively closed. The court will proceed to determine the precise amount of fees to be awarded, a process that could take several weeks. Lively’s lawyers will submit detailed billing records, and Baldoni’s team may challenge specific line items as excessive or unnecessary.
Both sides have already agreed not to appeal, ensuring finality. For Lively, the outcome represents a vindication of her position that she acted in good faith and faced a retaliatory lawsuit. For Baldoni, the ruling is a costly conclusion to a legal strategy that failed on its merits.
As the entertainment industry watches closely, the case of Blake Lively v. Justin Baldoni will likely be cited in future disputes as a benchmark for how courts handle the intersection of sexual misconduct allegations and defamation claims. Meanwhile, Lively appears ready to turn the page, focusing on her family and her next professional moves. Whether this chapter will change the dynamics of power and accountability in Hollywood remains to be seen, but for now, the legal score is settled.
This article is part of ongoing coverage of high-profile entertainment legal battles. For more on the economic impact of large-scale litigation, see our analysis of Recession Fears Intensify as US Consumer Spending Slumps and Germany Faces Energy Shock.
Comments