Blake Lively Sued Director of It Ends With Us for Harassment and a Smear Campaign — Full Case

Blake Lively sued her It Ends With Us co-star and director Justin Baldoni for sexual harassment, retaliation, and a coordinated smear campaign after raising workplace concerns during the production of the 2024 film. Lively filed her initial complaint with the California Civil Rights Department in December 2024, followed the same day by a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Baldoni, his production company Wayfarer Studios, Wayfarer CEO Jamey Heath, crisis publicists Melissa Nathan and Jennifer Abel, and related entities. She alleged the defendants launched a sophisticated digital manipulation campaign to preemptively destroy her reputation in retaliation for her protected workplace complaints.

Baldoni denied all allegations. His legal team filed a $400 million countersuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and their publicist Leslie Sloane in January 2025, accusing them of civil extortion, defamation, and orchestrating a campaign to seize creative control of the film. Judge Lewis J. Liman of the Southern District of New York dismissed Baldoni’s countersuit in June 2025. The court later gutted most of Lively’s claims in April 2026, including her core sexual harassment count, leaving only retaliation-related claims active. The parties settled confidentially in early May 2026, two weeks before the scheduled trial date of May 18, with no money changing hands according to a source familiar with the matter. Judge Liman subsequently ordered Baldoni and Wayfarer to pay Lively’s attorneys’ fees under a California law protecting survivors from retaliatory defamation suits, but denied her motion for punitive damages and treble damages.

It Ends With Us Lawsuit Timeline and Updates

August 2024 — It Ends With Us Opens, Feud Rumors Surface Immediately

It Ends With Us, based on Colleen Hoover’s bestselling novel about domestic violence and relationship abuse, opened in theaters on August 9, 2024. The film starred Lively as Lily Bloom and Baldoni as Ryle Kincaid, her charming but abusive husband. Baldoni also directed the picture. Sony Pictures distributed it. The film grossed nearly $350 million worldwide and was among the summer’s biggest box office performances.

During the promotional tour, Baldoni and Lively appeared to avoid each other at press events and red carpets, an absence impossible to hide in a two-lead film campaign. Online speculation about a behind-the-scenes feud grew rapidly. Lively was simultaneously criticized by segments of the public for what some saw as an insufficiently solemn promotional approach to a film centered on domestic violence, including a widely circulated post about a cocktail served at an afterparty named “Ryle You Wait,” after the film’s abusive character. That detail would later appear in Baldoni’s countersuit.

January 2024 — The “All Hands” Meeting Before Filming Resumed

Before the film’s August release and before the lawsuits, a significant meeting took place in January 2024. According to Lively’s complaint, a formal meeting was convened prior to the resumption of filming to address a “hostile work environment” on set. Lively laid out specific demands at that meeting, including no further comments about her late father, no adding sex scenes outside the approved script, no showing nude videos or images to Lively, and no violations of physical boundaries during intimate scenes. Her husband Ryan Reynolds attended. According to Lively’s lawyers, Baldoni and Wayfarer agreed to those terms. Sony Pictures reportedly approved the demands as well.

Baldoni’s team later characterized that meeting differently, alleging Lively used it as leverage to take creative control of the film and that she was not expressing genuine safety concerns but executing a calculated strategy to seize editorial authority over the final cut.

December 20, 2024 — Lively Files California CRD Complaint

Lively filed a formal complaint with the California Civil Rights Department, the state agency that handles pre-litigation employment discrimination and harassment claims. The complaint named Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios, Jamey Heath, crisis PR specialist Melissa Nathan, publicist Jennifer Abel, and their affiliated entities as respondents. It alleged sexual harassment and a retaliatory smear campaign orchestrated in response to Lively raising workplace safety concerns on the set of It Ends With Us.

Specific on-set allegations in the complaint included inappropriate comments from Baldoni about Lively’s appearance and weight, unprompted references to Baldoni’s self-described pornography addiction in front of Lively and crew members, displaying explicit images and videos to cast and crew without consent, violations of physical boundaries during the filming of intimate scenes including a love scene and a birth scene where Baldoni pushed for nudity against Lively’s wishes, and unwanted attempts at physical contact.

December 21, 2024 — The New York Times Publishes the Smear Machine Story

The day after Lively filed her CRD complaint, The New York Times published a detailed investigative piece titled “‘We Can Bury Anyone’: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine.” The article, based on a review of thousands of pages of documents including text messages and emails between Nathan and Abel, documented an alleged coordinated PR operation run by Baldoni’s crisis communications team designed to preemptively damage Lively’s public standing in anticipation of her going public with her concerns.

The messages cited in the Times article included communications where Nathan and Abel discussed specific tactics for planting negative narratives about Lively in the press, reaching out to journalists to shape coverage before Lively’s complaint could become public, and managing online discourse to turn sentiment against her. Those communications became the factual backbone of Lively’s smear campaign claims and the subject of Baldoni’s libel suit against the paper.

December 31, 2024 — Lively Files Federal Lawsuit; Baldoni Sues The New York Times

On the final day of 2024, two major legal filings landed simultaneously. Lively formalized her CRD allegations into a federal civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios, Heath, Nathan, Abel, Sarowitz, production entity It Ends With Us Movie LLC, and TAG PR as defendants. Her causes of action included sexual harassment, retaliation, failure to prevent harassment, aiding and abetting harassment and retaliation, breach of contract, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and false light invasion of privacy. She alleged damages of $161 million tied to the smear campaign’s impact on her professional opportunities and reputation.

The same day, Baldoni, Wayfarer, Abel, Nathan, and multiple other co-plaintiffs filed an 87-page libel lawsuit against The New York Times in Los Angeles Superior Court, seeking $250 million. The complaint accused the Times of relying on “cherry-picked and altered communications” that had been “stripped of necessary context and deliberately spliced to mislead,” and alleged the newspaper was complicit in Lively’s campaign to destroy Baldoni’s reputation. The Times stated its story was “meticulously and responsibly reported” and pledged to vigorously defend against the suit.

January 16, 2025 — Baldoni Files $400 Million Countersuit Against Lively

Baldoni, Wayfarer, Heath, Nathan, Abel, and related parties filed a 179-page civil lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Lively, Reynolds, publicist Leslie Sloane, and Sloane’s firm Vision PR. The complaint sought $400 million in damages and alleged civil extortion, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with contractual relations and economic advantage, and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage.

The countersuit accused Lively of engineering a “hostile takeover” of It Ends With Us by threatening to walk off production unless given creative control, weaponizing sexual harassment allegations to deflect blame for a “disastrous” publicity campaign for the film, orchestrating a coordinated press attack with Reynolds and their publicist, and using Taylor Swift’s influence to pressure Baldoni into accepting Lively’s script revisions. The countersuit included text messages in which Lively allegedly described Reynolds and Swift as her “dragons,” referencing Game of Thrones.

Lively’s attorneys called the countersuit “another chapter in the abuser playbook,” invoking the concept of DARVO: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim Offender.

January 27, 2025 — Judge Liman Sets March 2026 Trial Date, Consolidates Cases

Judge Lewis J. Liman of the Southern District of New York set a trial date of March 9, 2026, and indicated plans to consolidate the dueling lawsuits into a single trial. On January 30, the judge formally ordered consolidation. That same day, Lively’s attorneys stated their intent to file a motion to dismiss Baldoni’s countersuit. In a separate move, Baldoni’s team launched a website publishing an amended complaint and a document titled “Timeline of Relevant Events,” which Judge Liman immediately flagged as improperly attaching a factual narrative outside the court record. The judge warned sanctions were possible and noted he could accelerate the trial date if the case continued to be litigated in the press.

February 3, 2025 — First Court Hearing

Attorneys for both sides met in federal court in Manhattan for the first hearing in the consolidated case. The 90-minute session covered scheduling, discovery timelines, and the parties’ strategy signals. Lively’s attorney Michael Gottlieb said they would move to dismiss Baldoni’s countersuit and would file an amended complaint adding new claims and defendants. Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman indicated they would seek Lively’s deposition as early as possible. Both sides accused the other of improper media conduct, and the judge signaled he was watching both camps carefully for violations of professional conduct rules governing attorney public statements.

February 18, 2025 — Lively Files Amended Complaint

Lively filed an amended complaint adding significant new allegations and corroborating witnesses. The amended version alleged that Lively was not the only woman to report concerns about Baldoni’s behavior. It stated that in May 2023, another female cast member reported her own concerns about Baldoni’s unwelcome behavior, and that Baldoni responded in writing acknowledging awareness of those concerns. A second female cast member later confided to Lively that she too felt uncomfortable on set. The amended complaint argued this documented pattern demolished Baldoni’s claim that Lively’s allegations were manufactured late in the production as a tactic to seize creative control.

May to June 2025 — Taylor Swift Subpoenaed, Then Released

Baldoni’s legal team subpoenaed Taylor Swift for communications she had with Lively related to the It Ends With Us production. The countersuit had alleged Swift attended a meeting where she praised Lively’s script revisions and pressured Baldoni to accept them. Swift’s legal team pushed back sharply, stating the subpoena was “designed to use Taylor Swift’s name to draw public interest by creating tabloid clickbait instead of focusing on the facts of the case.” Lively also sought a protective order to block Baldoni’s team from accessing Swift’s communications. Baldoni’s lawyers dropped the subpoena on May 22, 2025. A judge separately rejected Baldoni’s attempt to extend the deadline for Swift’s deposition, finding the team had not demonstrated appropriate diligence.

June 9, 2025 — Judge Dismisses Baldoni’s $400 Million Countersuit

Judge Liman dismissed Baldoni’s $400 million lawsuit against Lively, Reynolds, Sloane, Vision PR, and The New York Times. The court ruled that many of the statements at issue were legally protected, including Lively’s allegations of sexual harassment, which qualified for litigation privilege, and that the claims did not meet the legal standards required for defamation or extortion. Lively’s legal team declared “total victory and a complete vindication.” Baldoni’s attorney Freedman disputed that framing, stating the court had invited amendment of four of the seven claims and previewing that Baldoni would file a revised complaint.

The Times lawsuit was also effectively ended in this ruling. The libel case filed in Los Angeles Superior Court was consolidated into the New York proceedings and dismissed along with the rest of Baldoni’s claims.

October to November 2025 — Baldoni Countersuit Formally Closed

Baldoni’s team was given until October 31, 2025, to file an amended complaint restoring any of the dismissed claims. They did not do so. On October 17, the court issued an order to show cause as to why final judgment should not be entered. Baldoni and his co-plaintiffs did not respond. The judge formally entered final judgment closing Baldoni’s lawsuit in November 2025.

April 2, 2026 — Judge Dismisses Most of Lively’s Claims

In a major ruling two months before the scheduled trial, Judge Liman dismissed 10 of Lively’s 13 claims. The central dismissal was her sexual harassment claim. The court ruled that Lively was working as an independent contractor rather than as an employee, which meant she could not pursue a Title VII sexual harassment claim under federal employment law. The three surviving claims were breach of contract, retaliation, and aiding and abetting retaliation, all centered on the smear campaign rather than the on-set conduct allegations.

The ruling significantly changed the trial’s scope. The parties were called to separate phone sessions with Magistrate Judge Sarah Cave to discuss updated settlement positions. Those talks ended without resolution. Lively’s attorney Sigrid McCawley publicly stated Lively still planned to testify at the May trial and had already achieved part of her goals by forcing the smear campaign operation into public record.

May 5, 2026 — Settlement Announced Two Weeks Before Trial

Lively and Baldoni announced a confidential settlement on May 5, 2026, two weeks before the May 18 trial date. The joint statement released through their respective legal teams read: “The end product — the movie It Ends With Us — is a source of pride to all of us who worked to bring it to life. Raising awareness, and making a meaningful impact in the lives of domestic violence survivors — and all survivors — is a goal that we stand behind. We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard. We remain firmly committed to workplaces free of improprieties and unproductive environments.”

A source familiar with the matter confirmed to NBC News that no money changed hands as part of the settlement terms. As part of the agreement, both parties agreed to abide by Judge Liman’s forthcoming ruling on Lively’s pending motion for attorneys’ fees and not to appeal that ruling.

June 13, 2026 — Judge Orders Baldoni to Pay Lively’s Legal Fees

Judge Liman ruled that Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios must pay Lively’s defense costs under California Civil Code Section 47.1, the Protecting Survivors from Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act, a 2023 California law designed to protect sexual abuse accusers from retaliatory defamation suits. The ruling found Lively was the prevailing defendant in Baldoni’s dismissed countersuit and that she had brought her claims in good faith.

Liman denied Lively’s motion for treble damages and punitive damages, finding that those remedies are not available under federal law in this context and that there was no evidence the statements at issue were made with the malice required for punitive relief. The exact amount of attorneys’ fees owed was not set in the June 13 ruling; that determination was left to a subsequent proceeding. Baldoni retains the right to appeal the fee ruling. Lively’s attorneys stated in a joint comment 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 Section 47.1.”

The Smear Campaign Allegations in Detail

The most legally durable portion of Lively’s case, the portion that survived both Baldoni’s motion to dismiss and the court’s April 2026 narrowing of her claims, was not about what happened on set. It was about what allegedly happened off set, after she raised her concerns.

Lively’s complaint and the New York Times reporting described a specific operation. Baldoni retained Melissa Nathan, a crisis publicist, specifically to manage the threat of Lively going public. Nathan and publicist Jennifer Abel were documented in text messages discussing how to place negative stories about Lively, which journalists to approach, what narratives to seed, and how to use online platforms to amplify criticism of Lively’s promotional conduct for the film. The internal communications included a message that became the headline of the Times article: the phrase “we can bury anyone” in reference to the team’s claimed capacity to damage a target’s reputation through coordinated media outreach.

The smear campaign theory gave the litigation broader legal and cultural significance than an ordinary set-based harassment dispute. It raised a documented question about whether the entertainment industry’s crisis communications infrastructure was being used not merely to manage genuine reputational risks but to preemptively neutralize employees who complained about workplace misconduct. The fact that the smear campaign documentation became public through the Times reporting, months before any trial could examine it, meant that the reputational accountability Lively sought was to some degree achieved through journalism rather than litigation.

What the Competing Narratives Were

The two sides in this case constructed fundamentally incompatible accounts of the same events, and the litigation never reached a jury verdict that would have forced a factual resolution.

Lively’s account: Baldoni created a toxic, sexually charged set. When she raised concerns, he and his team privately moved to destroy her reputation before she could go public. The January 2024 meeting was a good-faith attempt to establish safe working conditions. Sony’s involvement in the film’s final cut reflected the studio’s own assessment that Lively’s approach served the film better, not a coercive takeover.

Baldoni’s account: Lively instrumentalized the language of harassment to seize creative control. The allegations were manufactured after editing disputes, not contemporaneous with filming. The January 2024 meeting was a coercive ultimatum. Reynolds and Swift applied celebrity pressure to force Baldoni’s compliance. Lively’s disastrous promotional conduct for the film, including the afterparty drink named after the film’s domestic abuser, damaged the project and prompted Baldoni’s team to engage crisis communications as a legitimate response to real reputational threats, not as retaliation for protected activity.

Courts resolved certain legal questions. The dismissal of Baldoni’s countersuit meant the court found his allegations did not meet the legal standards for defamation and extortion. The dismissal of Lively’s sexual harassment claim meant the court found her employment relationship was not that of an employee, which is a technical legal determination rather than a finding about whether harassment occurred. Neither outcome constitutes a factual verdict on what actually happened between Lively and Baldoni on the set of It Ends With Us.

The Broader Impact on the Film and the People Involved

Several professional consequences followed the December 2024 filings before any court ruled on anything. Baldoni was dropped by his talent agency WME, which also represents Lively and Reynolds. Baldoni’s Voices of Solidarity Award from the nonprofit organization Vital Voices Global Partnership, which supports women in leadership roles, was rescinded. His production company Wayfarer Studios faced questions about its future viability. Cast members including Jenny Slate publicly expressed support for Lively. The It Ends With Us film itself, despite or possibly because of the controversy, became a commercial success, with its domestic violence subject matter generating renewed discussion precisely as news of the behind-the-scenes allegations spread.

Colleen Hoover, the author of the source novel, broke her silence in November 2025. She described the litigation as taking away from the story that originally inspired the book, her own mother’s experience of domestic abuse. “The book was inspired by her story, and now it gives us PTSD to think about it,” Hoover said in an interview, expressing regret that the legal fight had consumed the cultural conversation around a film meant to illuminate the experience of survivors.

California Civil Code Section 47.1 and What It Means

One lasting legal legacy of the It Ends With Us litigation may be the application of California Civil Code Section 47.1 in the attorney fees ruling. That statute, enacted in 2023, is called the Protecting Survivors from Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act. It was designed specifically to address a pattern the legislature identified in celebrity and entertainment industry disputes: accused parties using defamation lawsuits to financially punish and silence people who had reported sexual misconduct, even when those defamation claims were ultimately meritless.

Under Section 47.1, when a defendant prevails in a defamation suit brought as retaliation for reporting sexual misconduct, the prevailing defendant can seek recovery of attorneys’ fees and, in cases of malice, treble damages and punitive damages. Judge Liman’s June 2026 ruling found that Lively prevailed under Section 47.1 and awarded attorneys’ fees, while declining to award punitive damages on the grounds that no malice was proven. The statute’s application in federal court in New York, where California law governed a portion of the claims under the parties’ contracts, may inform future litigation in similar circumstances where entertainment industry defendants use defamation suits against accusers governed by California employment and civil rights law.

Read These

• TikTok youth addiction lawsuit
• Janice Griffith rooftop stunt lawsuit
• Workday AI discrimination lawsuit
• XRP SEC lawsuit
• Mielle Organics lawsuit

What This Lawsuit Teaches Consumers

The It Ends With Us lawsuit, whatever one concludes about the underlying factual dispute, produced a documented public record of something that had long been discussed in the entertainment industry but rarely litigated in federal court: the use of professional crisis communications firms to manage and neutralize employees who report workplace misconduct.

The text messages between Nathan and Abel, made public through the Times reporting and incorporated into court filings, showed communications that read as a planning operation for a reputation attack. Whether that operation constituted unlawful retaliation under employment law, a question the settlement left unresolved, is a narrower question than whether such operations are appropriate. The documents showed what that kind of operation looks like when it is coordinated and documented in real time by professionals who apparently did not anticipate their communications becoming evidence.

The case also surfaced a significant gap in employment law protections for high-profile entertainment performers. Lively’s sexual harassment claims failed not because a court found no harassment occurred, but because the court found she was an independent contractor rather than an employee. Federal anti-harassment law under Title VII covers employees. It does not cover independent contractors. Major film stars, who typically work under individual service contracts rather than as studio employees, are commonly classified as independent contractors. That classification, which has significant financial and creative advantages for performers in many circumstances, also means that federal harassment protections that apply to millions of employees who work on the productions those stars anchor do not apply to the stars themselves.

Whether California state law fills that gap, particularly under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, which covers contractors in certain circumstances, was not fully resolved by the settlement. Lively’s surviving claims at settlement were primarily about retaliation for raising protected concerns, not about the harassment itself as a standalone cause of action. That distinction may matter in future cases where entertainment industry performers seek legal accountability for on-set misconduct rather than only for retaliation following it.