Blake Lively Lawsuit: Claims, Rulings, Settlement and Fees Explained
The Blake Lively lawsuit was one of the most closely watched entertainment cases in recent US legal history, and as of October 2026 it has mostly come to an end. Lively, the actor, sued Justin Baldoni, the director and co-star of “It Ends With Us,” along with his company Wayfarer Studios and others. She alleged sexual harassment on set and a retaliatory campaign against her reputation. Baldoni denied the claims and filed a $400 million countersuit, which a federal judge dismissed. This guide covers what each side claimed, how the judge ruled, and how the case settled before trial.
What Is the Blake Lively Lawsuit at a Glance?
The main case is Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge Lewis J. Liman presided. The table below gives the key facts in one place.
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Case name | Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, et al. |
| Court | US District Court, Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) |
| Judge | Lewis J. Liman |
| Plaintiff | Blake Lively |
| Main defendants | Justin Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios, a film-specific production company, and publicists hired by Baldoni’s side |
| First step | California Civil Rights Department complaint, December 20, 2024 |
| Federal filing | December 31, 2024 |
| Countersuit | $400 million, filed January 16, 2025; dismissed June 9, 2025 |
| Trial date | Moved from March 9, 2026 to May 18, 2026; never held |
| Outcome | Settled May 4, 2026; fee award of $407,451.75 to Lively on August 26, 2026 |
How Did the Dispute Start?
The legal fight began with an administrative complaint, not a lawsuit. On December 20, 2024, Lively filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department, the state agency that handles workplace harassment and discrimination claims.
In that complaint, Lively alleged a hostile work environment and sexual harassment during the filming of “It Ends With Us.” She also alleged that Baldoni’s side ran a public relations campaign to damage her reputation after she raised concerns. The next day, December 21, 2024, The New York Times published a report on these allegations and the alleged PR effort.
In California, a worker usually files with the Civil Rights Department before suing under the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The agency can then issue a “right to sue” notice. On December 31, 2024, Lively filed her federal lawsuit in New York. Baldoni and his team denied all of her allegations from the start.
What Did Blake Lively Claim in Her Lawsuit?
Lively’s complaint centered on two theories: sexual harassment on set and retaliation after she complained. She filed an amended complaint on February 9, 2025, which added a defamation claim.
Her filings alleged that Baldoni and a producer behaved in ways that made her uncomfortable during production. They also alleged that, after she raised those concerns, Baldoni’s side hired crisis publicists to shape online opinion against her. The defendants denied these claims and said they only defended their own reputations.
It is worth stressing that these were allegations. No jury ever decided whether they were true, because the case settled before trial.
What Was Justin Baldoni’s $400 Million Countersuit?
Baldoni’s countersuit claimed that Lively and others, not he, were the ones who caused harm. Filed on January 16, 2025, in the same federal court, it sought $400 million.
The suit named Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and her publicist Leslie Sloane. It alleged extortion, defamation, and invasion of privacy. Baldoni’s side argued that Lively used false claims to take creative control of the film.
On June 9, 2025, Judge Liman dismissed the countersuit. He found that many statements were protected by privileges. These included California’s litigation privilege, which protects statements made in legal filings, and the fair report privilege, which protects accurate reports about legal proceedings. Baldoni’s side was allowed to try again with an amended pleading but chose not to. Final judgment on the countersuit was entered in October 2025.
What Happened to Baldoni’s Lawsuit Against The New York Times?
Baldoni’s claims against The New York Times also failed. In late December 2024, he filed a $250 million libel suit against the newspaper in Los Angeles County Superior Court. That suit was later dropped, and the Times was added as a defendant in the New York federal case in January 2025.
In the June 9, 2025 ruling, Judge Liman also dismissed the claims against the Times. He found that its reporting was protected. The Times then went to New York state court to recover its legal costs under New York’s anti-SLAPP law. On July 27, 2026, a New York state judge ordered Wayfarer Studios to pay the Times $171,616.20.
Which Claims Survived and Which Were Dismissed?
Most of Lively’s claims did not survive. On April 2, 2026, Judge Liman dismissed 10 of her 13 claims, including all of her sexual harassment claims, and let a narrow set of retaliation and contract claims move toward trial.
Legal summaries of the ruling point to three key reasons. First, the court found that Lively was an independent contractor, not an employee. Some laws, like Title VII, only protect employees. Second, the court held that California’s harassment law did not reach conduct that mainly took place outside California. Third, her defamation claim fell to the fair report privilege. The court also found that a long-form actor agreement was never signed, so it could not be enforced.
| Claim type | Result on April 2, 2026 | Reason given (as reported) |
|---|---|---|
| Sexual harassment (federal and California) | Dismissed | No employment relationship; core conduct outside California |
| Title VII and Labor Code retaliation | Dismissed | Those laws require an employee; Lively was found to be a contractor |
| Defamation | Dismissed | Fair report privilege |
| Contract claim on unsigned actor agreement | Dismissed | Agreement was never signed, which was a condition of being bound |
| FEHA retaliation | Survived | FEHA’s retaliation rule protects “any person,” and a jury could find retaliation |
| Aiding and abetting retaliation | Survived | Disputed facts about the PR campaign |
| Breach of signed contract rider | Survived | Rider was a signed, separate agreement |
The court did not find that retaliation happened. It only found that a reasonable jury could find it did, so the question needed a trial.
What Legal Concepts Shaped the Case?
Retaliation
Retaliation means punishing someone because they made a complaint or took part in a protected activity. Under California’s FEHA, the court read this protection to cover “any person,” not just employees. That is why Lively’s retaliation claims survived even though her harassment claims did not.
Sexual Harassment Under California Law
FEHA bans sexual harassment at work, including against some contractors. However, state laws usually do not reach conduct that happens mostly in another state. Because the filming took place outside California, the court found that the state’s harassment law did not apply to the core conduct.
Defamation and Privileges
Defamation is a false statement of fact that harms someone’s reputation. Privileges can block a defamation claim even if the statement hurt. Statements in court papers and fair reports about lawsuits are often protected.
Anti-SLAPP Laws and California Civil Code 47.1
Anti-SLAPP laws let defendants quickly end lawsuits that target protected speech, and they often shift legal fees to the losing plaintiff. California also passed Civil Code Section 47.1 through AB 933, effective January 1, 2024. It protects people who share good-faith reports of sexual harassment or assault, made without malice. If someone sues them for defamation over that report and loses, the person who reported can recover fees and costs.
These ideas also show why civil cases work differently from criminal ones. This was a private dispute about money and rights, not a prosecution. For more on that split, read our guide on civil vs. criminal law.
Did the Case Settle Before Trial?
Yes. On May 4, 2026, two weeks before the May 18 trial date, Lively and the Wayfarer parties reached a settlement, and Lively dropped her three remaining claims.
The trial had already been moved once. In December 2025, Judge Liman pushed it from March 9, 2026 to May 18, 2026. A February 2026 settlement conference failed.
Several outlets, including Variety, reported that no money changed hands. The agreement ends the litigation and bars future claims about the dispute. It left Lively’s request for fees under Section 47.1 for the court to decide.
How Much Did the Court Award in Legal Fees?
The court awarded Lively $407,451.75, about 5% of what she asked for. The award covers fees tied to defending Baldoni’s failed defamation suit, not her own claims.
| Date | Fee ruling or filing | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| June 2026 | Court rules Lively may recover fees under Civil Code 47.1 | Not set |
| June 30, 2026 | Lively requests fees and costs | About $8.04 million |
| August 26, 2026 | Court awards attorneys’ fees | $363,245.40 |
| August 26, 2026 | Court awards costs | $44,206.35 |
| July 27, 2026 | Separate New York state award to The New York Times against Wayfarer | $171,616.20 |
The judge found the lawyers’ hourly rates reasonable but the hours claimed excessive. He also rejected media-relations costs and some travel costs. Court records are available through the Southern District of New York.
What Is the Status of the Blake Lively Lawsuit as of October 2026?
As of October 2026, the main case is resolved. The claims settled in May 2026, the countersuit is final, and the court has ruled on fees.
We found no reports of an appeal of the August 2026 fee award as of late October 2026, but that could change. You can follow other high-profile cases in our lawsuit news section, such as the Home Depot class action lawsuit.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Blake Lively win her lawsuit?
Not in the usual sense. Most of her claims were dismissed, and the rest settled without a reported payment. She did win a fee award of $407,451.75 for defending Baldoni’s dismissed countersuit.
Was Justin Baldoni found liable for sexual harassment?
No. No court or jury found Baldoni liable. The harassment claims were dismissed on legal grounds, such as employment status and where the conduct took place, not on a finding about the facts.
Why was Baldoni’s $400 million countersuit dismissed?
Judge Liman found that the statements at issue were largely protected by privileges, including the litigation privilege and the fair report privilege. Baldoni’s side chose not to file an amended version.
Did Blake Lively get money from the settlement?
Variety and other outlets reported that no money changed hands in the May 2026 settlement. The separate fee award came from a court order, not the settlement.
What is California Civil Code 47.1?
It is a California law, effective January 1, 2024, that protects good-faith reports of sexual harassment or assault. If the person who reported wins a defamation suit over that report, they can recover legal fees and costs.
Which court handled the Blake Lively lawsuit?
The US District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Lewis J. Liman. A related fee fight between The New York Times and Wayfarer took place in New York state court.
Conclusion
The Blake Lively lawsuit ended without a trial or any finding that the harassment allegations were true or false. Judge Liman dismissed Baldoni’s $400 million countersuit in June 2025 and most of Lively’s claims in April 2026. The parties settled the rest on May 4, 2026, with no reported payment. Lively later won $407,451.75 in fees under California Civil Code 47.1, far less than the roughly $8 million she sought. As of October 2026, no appeal of the fee award has been reported.
