Recommendations of the Editorial team
A judge has ordered Justin Baldoni to pay Blake Lively’s legal fees – although she won’t be entitled to any additional damages in connection with this with the dismissal of his $400 million defamation lawsuit against his former It Ends With Us co-star.
The dispute over damages and costs arose in the wake of news that Lively and Baldoni had settled their bitter legal dispute in early May – shortly before the case was due to go to trial. While the actual trial ended without any payment for either side, Lively’s lawyers had maintained their request for damages and costs related to the dismissal of Baldonius’ lawsuit. They relied on California’s Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act, which is intended to protect victims by requiring plaintiffs to pay penalties if their defamation lawsuits fail in response to allegations of misconduct.
On Friday, the court ruled that California’s Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act “does not circumvent the entire carefully crafted body of federal procedural law designed to protect the rights of the parties.”
No punitive damages for Lively
“The statute instead creates a narrow exception to the usual course of litigation for a specific and limited type of relief,” U.S. Federal Judge Lewis Liman said in his decision. “Compensatory and punitive damages are not covered by this exception.”
Judge Liman denied Lively’s request for treble and punitive damages, finding there was no evidence that Baldoni and his production company Wayfarer committed the alleged defamations in bad faith.
Spokespeople for Baldoni and Lively did not immediately respond to a request for comment from ROLLING STONE.
Accusations and counterclaims
Lively originally accused Baldoni and his production company Wayfarer Studios of creating a toxic, sexually charged work environment and discriminating against women on the set of It Ends With Us. Baldoni denied the allegations and filed a $400 million countersuit, which was dismissed in June 2025. Lively’s original lawsuit included harassment allegations against Baldoni, but those were among the numerous counts the judge threw out in April, when the case appeared to be headed toward trial.
In advance of the dispute over additional damages, both parties submitted written submissions at the end of May; a hearing was held on June 1st.
In their filing, Lively’s attorneys called their client a “prevailing defendant” and said she is entitled “not only to attorney’s fees and other litigation costs, but also to treble compensatory and punitive damages.” At the June 1 hearing, her attorney likened the law to anti-SLAPP rules designed to deter defamation lawsuits that are actually aimed at stifling free speech (according to Courthouse News Service).
Baldonius rebuttal
Baldonius’ lawyers, for their part, rejected Lively’s claims, calling the request “a detour around the jury trial that was rendered moot by the settlement in this case.”