Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni settle 'It Ends with Us' lawsuit ahead of trial
Actors Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni have settled their legal dispute related to the film *It Ends with Us*, just weeks before the case was set to go to trial. Lively had filed a lawsuit alleging harassment and retaliation, but in April 2026, Judge Lewis Liman dismissed 10 of her 13 claims, including sexual harassment and defamation, allowing only breach of contract and retaliation claims to proceed. Baldoni had countersued for $400 million, but that suit was dismissed in June 2025. Both parties confirmed the settlement on May 5, 2026, with no financial payout to either side. In a joint statement, they affirmed their commitment to safe workplaces and raising awareness for domestic violence survivors. Lively attended the Met Gala shortly after the settlement was announced.
news.com.au provides a more complete, accurate, and balanced account of the legal and procedural aspects of the case, while NZ Herald emphasizes narrative drama and reputational consequences using speculative and emotionally charged language.
- ✓ Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni settled their lawsuit out of court on or just before May 5, 2026.
- ✓ The lawsuit stemmed from allegations made by Lively against Baldoni related to their work on *It Ends with Us*.
- ✓ Baldoni denied the allegations and filed a $400 million countersuit, which was later dismissed.
- ✓ Judge Lewis Liman dismissed most of Lively’s claims, allowing only three (breach of contract, retaliation, and aiding/abetting retaliation) to proceed.
- ✓ The settlement occurred shortly before the trial was scheduled to begin on May 18, 2026.
- ✓ Lively attended the 2026 Met Gala shortly after the settlement was announced.
- ✓ Both parties issued a joint statement emphasizing commitment to safe workplaces and raising awareness about domestic violence.
Framing of the settlement outcome
Implies Lively lost the legal and public relations battle; describes the settlement as a 'backfire' and suggests career consequences for both Lively and Reynolds.
Presents the settlement as neutral, with no financial payout to either side; focuses on resolution and closure without assigning victory or defeat.
Tone toward Blake Lively
Highly critical; uses terms like 'hubris', 'legal overreach', and 'toxic'; cites unnamed Sony executive calling her 'epic-level stupid'.
Neutral and factual; quotes legal developments and joint statements without editorial judgment.
Coverage of legal rulings
Mentions the lawsuit and countersuit but omits the key detail that 10 of Lively’s 13 claims were dismissed by the judge.
Explicitly states that Judge Liman dismissed 10 claims, including sexual harassment and defamation, narrowing the case significantly before settlement.
Use of anonymous sources and celebrity gossip
Relies heavily on unnamed studio executives and 'multiple sources' to assert reputational damage and private text exchanges involving Affleck and Swift.
Cites 'a source' for settlement timing but avoids speculative claims about private communications or broader industry fallout.
Narrative emphasis
Focuses on celebrity power dynamics, PR damage, and personal conduct; frames the event as a scandalous downfall.
Focuses on legal process, settlement terms, and official statements; frames the event as a concluded legal matter.
NZ Herald
Framing: NZ Herald frames the event as a scandalous downfall of a powerful celebrity couple, emphasizing reputational damage, personal hubris, and industry backlash.
Tone: Sensational, critical, and judgmental toward Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds
Narrative Framing: The phrase 'dirty laundry' and 'dethroned Hollywood’s golden couple' frames the event as a moral and social downfall rather than a legal resolution.
"The dirty laundry that dethroned Hollywood’s golden couple"
Framing By Emphasis: Describing Lively’s Met Gala appearance as possibly a 'victory lap' that 'she has little to celebrate' implies defeat and undermines her public image.
"Lively’s appearance may have been intended as a victory lap, but she has little to celebrate."
Editorializing: Characterizing the lawsuit as 'legal overreach' and 'hubris' injects editorial judgment rather than reporting outcomes.
"Critics, however, have seen it as little more than an act of hubris and legal overreach."
Vague Attribution: Use of anonymous quote calling Lively 'epic-level stupid' serves to discredit her without accountability.
"an executive at Sony... described Lively as 'epic-level stupid'"
Cherry Picking: Mentions 'cringe-inducing text exchanges' with Affleck and Swift without providing evidence or context.
"cabin of their famous friends (Ben Affleck and Taylor Swift included)"
Loaded Language: Claims the lawsuit 'backfired spectacularly' despite no public verdict or admission of fault.
"has backfired spectacularly"
Omission: Omits key fact that 10 of 13 claims were dismissed, which is central to understanding the legal context.
news.com.au
Framing: news.com.au frames the event as a concluded legal matter with procedural clarity, emphasizing settlement terms, judicial rulings, and mutual statements.
Tone: Neutral, factual, and procedural
Framing By Emphasis: Headline focuses on a verifiable fact (no money exchanged) without moral judgment.
"Blake Lively got absolutely no money in shocking Justin Baldoni lawsuit settlement"
Proper Attribution: Reports that only three of Lively’s claims survived judicial review, a crucial legal detail absent in NZ Herald.
"Last month, Judge Lewis Liman threw out 10 of Lively’s 13 claims... only three of her claims could proceed"
Balanced Reporting: Includes direct quotes from a joint statement emphasizing shared values and closure.
"Raising awareness, and making a meaningful impact in the lives of domestic violence survivors — and all survivors — is a goal that we stand behind."
Comprehensive Sourcing: Notes the judge’s reluctance to proceed to trial, adding procedural context.
"The source added that the judge didn’t want there to be a trial because the case was 'long' and 'drawn-out.'"
Proper Attribution: States that Baldoni’s countersuit was dismissed, clarifying legal outcome.
"Baldoni’s suit was dismissed in June 2025"
Omission: Avoids speculative claims about private communications or industry reputations.
news.com.au
news.com.au provides a more neutral, fact-based account of the settlement, including financial outcomes, legal developments, and the joint statement. It includes updates on court rulings, timelines, and procedural details, making it more comprehensive in terms of legal and procedural accuracy.
NZ Herald
NZ Herald offers a narrative-driven, interpretive take focused on reputational fallout and celebrity dynamics. While it provides context about the film’s success and behind-the-scenes tensions, it omits key legal rulings and settlement specifics, relying instead on anonymous quotes and speculative commentary.
Blake Lively got absolutely no money in shocking Justin Baldoni lawsuit settlement
The dirty laundry that dethroned Hollywood’s golden couple