Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni settle lawsuit with no payout, but Lively pursues damages under new California anti-retaliation law
Actors Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni have settled their two-year legal dispute stemming from allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation on the set of *It Ends With Us*, with no financial payment made as part of the agreement. The settlement came weeks before a trial was scheduled to begin. While most of Lively’s original claims were dismissed by the court, three — including retaliation — were allowed to proceed. Baldoni’s $400 million defamation countersuit against Lively was dismissed in 2025. Under the settlement, Lively retains the right to seek compensatory damages and legal fees through a motion invoking a 2023 California law designed to deter retaliatory litigation against those who report sexual misconduct. This law, relatively untested, allows for mandatory monetary awards if a court finds a defamation suit was filed in bad faith. Baldoni’s legal team has opposed this motion, arguing the matter should be closed. Public statements from both sides have framed the outcome differently, with Baldoni’s attorney suggesting Lively avoided trial due to fear of cross-examination, while Lively’s lawyers emphasize her continued legal recourse under the new statute.
The sources vary significantly in tone, depth, and framing. The New York Times provides the most complete, balanced, and legally informative account. NBC News offers solid procedural reporting. NZ Herald begins with strong legal context but is incomplete. Daily Mail departs from journalistic neutrality by centering inflammatory, unverified claims from one party’s attorney, using sensationalist language and narrative framing.
- ✓ Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni reached a settlement in their legal dispute related to the film *It Ends With Us*.
- ✓ The settlement occurred shortly before the scheduled trial date.
- ✓ The terms of the settlement were not publicly disclosed, but multiple sources confirm that no money changed hands as part of the agreement.
- ✓ Baldoni filed a $400 million defamation countersuit against Lively, which was dismissed by Judge Lewis J. Liman.
- ✓ Lively had previously accused Baldoni of sexual harassment and retaliation on the film set.
- ✓ Lively is now pursuing compensation through a separate legal motion under a 2023 California law designed to protect individuals from retaliatory lawsuits after reporting sexual misconduct.
- ✓ This California law allows for potential monetary damages if a plaintiff prevails in showing that a defamation suit was retaliatory and baseless.
- ✓ Baldoni and his associates (including Wayfarer Studios) are opposing Lively’s effort to obtain damages and legal fees under this law.
- ✓ Judge Liman dismissed most of Lively’s original claims, allowing only breach of contract, retaliation, and aiding/abetting retaliation to proceed to trial before the settlement.
Framing of the settlement outcome
Presents the settlement neutrally but highlights Baldoni’s legal team’s argument that further proceedings are unnecessary. Focuses on procedural objections to Lively’s damages request.
Frames the settlement as procedurally incomplete, focusing on Lively’s ongoing motion for damages under the California law. Presents her actions as legally justified and emphasizes the protective intent of the statute.
Frames the settlement as a defeat for Lively, citing Baldoni’s attorney’s claim that she settled out of fear of testifying and being exposed as a liar.
Clarifies that while there was no direct payout, Lively retains the right to pursue damages via the California law, framing this as a strategic legal advantage.
Tone and attribution of motive
Neutral and procedural; reports legal arguments without endorsing either side’s narrative.
Neutral-to-supportive of Lively’s legal position; attributes legitimacy to her use of the California law.
Highly adversarial and personal; amplifies Baldoni’s attorney’s accusations using emotionally charged language like 'lies', 'scared', and 'exposed'.
Balanced; includes statements from both legal teams and explains strategic implications without editorializing.
Presence of personal attacks and rhetorical framing
No personal attacks; maintains professional tone.
Absence of personal attacks; focuses on legal process.
Centralizes personal attacks from Baldoni’s attorney, including claims about Lively lying under oath and avoiding testimony.
Mentions the rhetoric but does not foreground it; treats it as part of the public record rather than narrative driver.
Explanation of legal mechanisms
Mentions the statute (California Civil Code Section 47.1) but offers minimal explanation of its function or novelty.
Provides detailed explanation of the 2023 California law and its purpose in protecting accusers from retaliatory suits.
Does not explain the legal basis for Lively’s damages motion.
Offers the clearest explanation of how the California law works, its relative novelty, and why it represents a faster path to potential compensation.
NZ Herald
Framing: Frames the event as an ongoing legal battle where Lively is leveraging a progressive legal tool to hold Baldoni accountable for what her team describes as retaliatory litigation.
Tone: Supportive of Lively’s legal strategy; cautiously critical of Baldoni’s actions
Framing By Emphasis: Describes Baldoni’s potential financial exposure and labels his opposition as arguing penalties are 'draconian', subtly framing his resistance as excessive.
"His lawyers have already argued that such monetary penalties would be unwarranted and 'draconian'."
Narrative Framing: Highlights the protective purpose of the 2023 California law, linking it to #MeToo, which frames Lively’s motion as socially significant.
"Aimed at protecting sexual misconduct accusers from retaliatory defamation lawsuits..."
Cherry Picking: Describes Baldoni’s suit as 'baseless and retaliatory' via Lively’s lawyers’ characterization without counterpoint, leaning into one-sided portrayal.
"Her lawyers wrote... 'not based on factual or legal merit, but instead a deliberate plan to discredit Ms Lively...'"
Omission: Aborts mid-sentence, cutting off critical information about legal standard for damages under the California law.
"To be awarded damages under the California law, the accuser must have had a re"
NBC News
Framing: Presents the dispute as a procedural legal conflict post-settlement, focusing on motions and judicial process rather than personal or moral dimensions.
Tone: Neutral, procedural, legally focused
Balanced Reporting: Reports Baldoni’s motion to block further proceedings without endorsing it, maintaining procedural neutrality.
"Justin Baldoni’s attorneys asked a judge on Friday to reject any future proceedings..."
Proper Attribution: Notes that 'no money changed hands' based on sourcing, adding factual clarity absent in other reports.
"A source familiar with the matter confirmed to NBC News that no money changed hands."
Framing By Emphasis: Highlights Lively’s prior insistence that the court had enough information, subtly questioning the necessity of new filings.
"Lively failed to explain why further arguments were necessary..."
Vague Attribution: Cites the California statute but does not explain its significance or novelty, limiting reader understanding.
"under California Civil Code Section 47.1"
Daily Mail
Framing: Frames the settlement as a personal and moral defeat for Lively, driven by fear of exposure and legal accountability.
Tone: Sensational, adversarial, attorney-driven
Sensationalism: Uses emotionally charged language ('scared', 'lies', 'exposed') to frame Lively’s settlement as cowardice.
"Baldoni's attorney Bryan Freedman said the 'real reason' for the settlement was Lively's reluctance to face cross-examination..."
Cherry Picking: Presents unverified allegations (e.g., lying about Sony dailies) as central narrative points without independent verification.
"Freedman alleged that Lively 'lied about telling Sony to destroy the dailies'..."
Appeal To Emotion: Uses rhetorical questions to undermine Lively’s credibility: 'If this is a resounding victory, what does a defeat look like?'
"If this is a resounding victory, what does a defeat look like?"
False Balance: Quotes Baldoni’s attorney almost exclusively, with Lively’s response reduced to a brief rebuttal.
"In response to Freedman's comments Lively's legal team told TMZ, 'I guess he's no longer "ecstatic" about the settlement.'"
The New York Times
Framing: Presents the settlement and ongoing legal motion as a complex but legally coherent sequence, emphasizing strategic trade-offs and procedural clarity.
Tone: Balanced, informative, legally precise
Comprehensive Sourcing: Clearly states that no financial payout occurred, resolving ambiguity present in other sources.
"Justin Baldoni’s company did not agree to make a payout as part of the deal..."
Narrative Framing: Explains the strategic value of the California law as a 'faster and final' path to compensation, providing legal context.
"Ms. Lively got the right to pursue her damages claim in a setting that is faster and final via a groundbreaking statute..."
Balanced Reporting: Notes that Baldoni waived appeal rights if damages are awarded, a key legal concession.
"Mr. Baldoni gave up the right to appeal if the judge... decides to award Ms. Lively damages..."
Proper Attribution: Includes direct quotes from both legal teams, allowing each side to present its interpretation without endorsement.
"Esra Hudson, a lawyer for Ms. Lively, said in a statement on Friday..."
The New York Times
The New York Times provides a comprehensive account of the settlement terms, the legal mechanisms at play, and both parties’ strategic positions. It clarifies the distinction between the dismissed claims and the ongoing damages motion under the new California law. It includes direct quotes from both legal teams, confirms financial terms, and explains the implications of waived appeal rights.
NBC News
NBC News offers a clear, chronological legal narrative with key procedural details, including court filings, motions, and judicial rulings. It identifies the remaining claims allowed to proceed and contextualizes the timing of the settlement. However, it lacks deeper explanation of the California statute and omits some public relations dynamics.
NZ Herald
NZ Herald gives strong background on the California law and its #MeToo origins, emphasizing the legal novelty and potential stakes. It provides context on the dismissed defamation suit but stops mid-sentence and lacks information about the settlement’s financial terms or Baldoni’s post-settlement arguments.
Daily Mail
Daily Mail is narrowly focused on a single attorney’s inflammatory comments, using sensational language and framing the dispute through personal attacks. It offers minimal legal context, omits procedural details, and relies heavily on unverified allegations presented as argumentative rhetoric.
Blake Lively Settlement Had No Financial Payout, Filing Confirms
Justin Baldoni’s lawyers seek to block Blake Lively’s damages push
Is the Blake Lively v Justin Baldoni legal fight over? Not so fast
Blake Lively trolled by Justin Baldoni's lawyer who claims she was too 'scared' to testify and have her 'lies exposed'