The Wins for Blake Lively in the ‘It Ends With Us’ Case Continue in Final Ruling
‘A DARVO tactic.’
Blake Lively just scored another win in her legal battle with It Ends With Us co-star and director Justin Baldoni. According to Variety, judge Lewis Liman ruled on June 12, 2026, that Wayfarer Studios must cover her attorneys’ fees after Baldoni’s defamation lawsuit against her was dismissed. The decision is the latest twist in a years-long legal feud that’s been messy, expensive, and full of dramatic claims from both sides.
Liman handed down the ruling, which grants Lively her defense costs under a 2023 California law designed to shield sexual abuse accusers from retaliatory lawsuits. The law, called the Protecting Survivors from Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act, is meant to prevent powerful figures from using legal threats to silence victims. Liman’s decision makes it clear Lively’s claims were made in good faith, with no evidence of malice.
But the victory isn’t total. Liman denied Lively’s request for triple damages or punitive damages, saying those remedies aren’t available under federal law. That’s a letdown for Lively’s team, who had hoped to make an even stronger statement against what they called Baldoni’s retaliatory tactics.
Lively’s attorneys are framing the ruling as a win
In a statement, Lively’s lawyers Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb said the decision “makes it clear that Ms. Lively brought her claims in good faith” and that she’s the “prevailing defendant” under the California law. They also noted that the settlement agreement preserves Lively’s right to pursue damages through other legal avenues, meaning this fight might not be over yet.
The legal drama between Lively and Baldoni has been dragging on since late 2024, when Lively first accused Baldoni of sexually harassing her on the set of It Ends With Us. She also claimed he and his team launched an online whisper campaign to damage her reputation after she complained.
Baldoni fired back with a defamation lawsuit of his own, seeking $400 million in damages and accusing Lively of fabricating the harassment claims to seize control of the film. His legal team argued that Lively’s allegations were baseless and that she was the one trying to manipulate the situation. The case took a turn in June 2025 when a federal judge dismissed Baldoni’s countersuit, ruling that many of Lively’s statements were legally protected.
That was a major blow to Baldoni’s case, but the legal battle didn’t end there. Over the next year, both sides traded victories and setbacks. Ten of Lively’s original 13 claims were dismissed, and the remaining three were settled just two weeks before the case was set to go to trial in May 2026. The settlement terms were kept private, but it’s clear neither side walked away with everything they wanted.
Baldoni’s attorney, Bryan Freedman, isn’t backing down
In a statement, Freedman called Lively’s attempt to recover damages “a fruitless mission” and claimed she “received nothing” in the settlement. Freedman also took a shot at the California law Lively relied on, saying she was “exploiting” it to try to squeeze money out of Baldoni, per Fox News.
He doubled down on the argument that there was no evidence of sexual harassment, retaliation, or a smear campaign, and said the court’s ruling on the fee motion was a minor consolation for Lively. “Ms. Lively was only awarded limited attorney fees for a single claim as part of a case that lasted only a matter of months, nothing more,” Freedman said. He also accused Lively of tarnishing innocent people’s reputations and vowed to “stand up for the truth again” if necessary.
Lively’s legal team fired back with their own statement, calling Freedman’s remarks a “DARVO” tactic – short for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. They pointed out that Baldoni’s team had previously said Lively’s claims “deserved to be heard,” but now seemed to be arguing that women who speak out about harassment should be “sued into oblivion.”
Her attorneys also highlighted the significance of the California law, saying it’s designed to protect survivors from exactly this kind of legal retaliation. “People who do nothing wrong don’t have to pay millions of dollars, which is where this is headed now,” they added.
The back-and-forth between the two sides shows just how contentious this case has been
Lively’s initial lawsuit accused Baldoni of creating a hostile work environment, including unwanted advances and inappropriate behavior. Baldoni’s countersuit painted Lively as the aggressor, claiming she and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, were trying to extort him and take over the film. The legal wrangling even spilled over into media coverage, with Baldoni suing the New York Times. That lawsuit was dismissed in June 2025, further weakening Baldoni’s position.
The settlement in May 2026 seemed to bring an end to most of the litigation, but the fee motion ruling keeps the tension alive. For Lively, the decision is a validation of her claims and a sign that the legal system can work in favor of survivors. For Baldoni, it’s another chance to argue that the accusations against him were baseless and that Lively’s legal strategy was more about money than justice.
The California law at the center of this case is relatively new, and Lively’s legal team is hoping her victory will set a precedent for other survivors. The Protecting Survivors from Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act was passed to prevent powerful individuals from using lawsuits to silence accusers, and Lively’s case is one of the first high-profile tests of its effectiveness.
Her attorneys said in their statement that the ruling shows the law “creates a path for survivors to hold accountable those who weaponize online attacks and retaliatory lawsuits to intimidate and silence survivors.” That’s a powerful message, especially in an industry where speaking out can come with serious professional and personal risks.
(Featured image: Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. / Columbia Pictures)
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
Follow The Mary Sue:
