In a high-profile legal case, actress Blake Lively has emerged victorious in part of a contentious dispute against her former co-star, Justin Baldoni. On June 12, 2026, a federal judge determined that Lively is entitled to attorneys’ fees and litigation costs related to her allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation against Baldoni, who is also the director of the film “It Ends with Us.” However, the judge rejected her requests for treble damages and punitive damages.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(jpeg)/Justin-Baldoni-Blake-Lively-061226-4f66b0790afd40bd9ed93cd29b002d48.jpg)
The saga began in December 2024 when Lively filed a lawsuit against Baldoni, claiming he had harassed her and subsequently engaged in a retaliatory smear campaign. Baldoni, for his part, firmly denied the allegations and countersued Lively for $400 million, although this counterclaim was eventually dismissed by the courts. The pair reached a settlement just weeks before their trial was set to commence in May 2026, but the details of this agreement remain undisclosed and have yet to be made public.
Despite the settlement, a dispute over Lively’s right to pursue attorneys’ fees under California’s anti-retaliation law lingered, leading to the recent court ruling by U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman. The judge’s decision affirmed that Lively was entitled to recover her legal costs, but stopped short of awarding her any significant damages, highlighting the complexities of such litigation.
Baldoni’s attorney, Bryan Freedman, expressed his disappointment at the ruling, labelling it a defeat for Lively. In a statement following the decision, Freedman noted that the limited attorneys’ fees awarded to Lively “only referred to a single claim” and argued that her settlement did not justify the upwards of $300 million in damages and fees that she had initially sought. Freedman dismissed the claims of harassment and retaliation, stating, “We fought and won against a coordinated effort built on allegations that never happened.”
The dismissal of nearly 10 out of 13 claims made by Lively, according to Freedman, appears to be a significant aspect of this case. He argued that Lively’s pivot to California’s anti-retaliation law suggested a “fruitless mission” to obtain damages, claiming that her legal team had fallen short in their attempts to substantiate the seriousness of her allegations.
In stark contrast, Lively’s legal representatives pushed back against Freedman’s comments, labelling them as a misleading attack on survivors of harassment. “Bryan Freedman and his clients resorted to a DARVO statement that is a pack of lies,” they stated, firmly defending Lively’s initial claims. Their remarks underscored a broader concern regarding the treatment of individuals who come forward with allegations.
Lively’s team accuses Baldoni of attempting to undermine the credibility of those who bring forth sexual harassment claims. They argued, “Now it seems Justin Baldoni thinks women who bring claims of sexual harassment and retaliation in good faith, without malice, should be sued into oblivion.” They cited the ruling as a necessary mechanism in protecting legitimate victims from undue harassment in the legal system.
Despite the tensions surrounding the case and the legal tussles that continue to unfold, the court’s decision serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in legal claims of this nature. The outcomes reflect both the legal landscape in California and the challenges faced by individuals navigating allegations of harassment.
As this case concludes, it raises pertinent questions about the broader implications for survivors of harassment and their pursuit of justice. It remains to be seen how this ruling and the ensuing public discourse will influence future claims within the entertainment industry and beyond.