Blake Lively seeks damages and legal fees from Justin Baldoni following settlement of mutual lawsuits
Actress Blake Lively has returned to federal court in New York to seek legal fees and damages from co-star Justin Baldoni after a settlement was reached in May 2026 over a multi-year legal dispute stemming from the production of *It Ends with Us*. Lively initially sued Baldoni in December 2024, alleging inappropriate conduct and a coordinated effort to damage her reputation. Baldoni countersued for $400 million, naming Lively, Ryan Reynolds, and their publicist, but that suit was dismissed in June 2025 because Lively’s original allegations were filed with the California Civil Rights Department and thus considered privileged. Judge Lewis Liman dismissed some of Lively’s claims but upheld her retaliation allegations. Lively is now seeking compensation under a 2023 California law designed to deter retaliatory defamation lawsuits against those reporting misconduct, including tripled compensatory damages and punitive awards. The full settlement terms remain undisclosed. Legal experts note the case raises broader questions about protections for whistleblowers in the entertainment industry.
Sources agree on core facts but diverge significantly in framing, detail, and tone. NZ Herald provides the most legally precise and neutral account. New York Post adds valuable context but uses emotionally charged language. The Guardian and RNZ offer baseline reporting, though RNZ appears corrupted. No source is fully comprehensive, but NZ Herald comes closest to balanced, informative coverage.
- ✓ Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni reached a settlement in their legal dispute in May 2026.
- ✓ Lively returned to court in early June 2026 to seek legal fees and damages from Baldoni.
- ✓ The legal battle originated from allegations Lively made against Baldoni in late 2024 related to the film *It Ends with Us*.
- ✓ Lively accused Baldoni of inappropriate conduct and a smear campaign; Baldoni countersued for defamation and extortion.
- ✓ Baldoni’s $400 million defamation lawsuit was dismissed by Judge Lewis Liman.
- ✓ Judge Liman dismissed some of Lively’s claims but upheld her retaliation allegations.
- ✓ The full terms of the settlement have not been disclosed.
- ✓ The case involves legal arguments under California law regarding retaliatory lawsuits.
Framing of Lively’s post-settlement court appearance
Identical to The Guardian, but with corrupted text
Legal-procedural: 'seeking damages under a California law' with emphasis on statutory protection for complainants
Neutral: 'return to court' to 'demand legal fees and damages'
Sensational: 'drags...back to court' implying aggressive pursuit post-settlement
Detail on Baldoni’s dismissed lawsuit
Same as The Guardian
Specifies $400 million and explains dismissal due to privileged status of Lively’s complaint
Mentions countersuit but omits amount
Specifies $400 million, names additional defendants (Reynolds, publicist), and cites judge’s reasoning
Legal basis for Lively’s damages claim
Same as The Guardian
Names 2023 California law, explains 'triple damages' and 'mandatory penalties' for retaliatory suits
Mentions California law generally
Mentions triple and punitive damages but not the law’s name or intent
Settlement timeline and context
Same as The Guardian
Does not specify settlement date
Says settlement reached 'last month', no further detail
Specifies settlement on May 4, trial originally set for May 18, and judge previously dismissed 10 of 13 claims
Post-settlement narratives from legal teams
No post-settlement commentary
No post-settlement commentary
No post-settlement commentary
Includes Baldoni attorney calling it a 'huge victory' and claiming Lively was 'scared' to testify; Lively’s team calls it a 'resounding victory'
The Guardian
Framing: Neutral procedural framing: presents the court appearance as a continuation of legal process post-settlement.
Tone: Factual and restrained
Balanced Reporting: Uses neutral verb 'return to court' without judgment
"Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni return to court a month after reaching settlement"
Proper Attribution: Describes legal arguments without endorsing either side
"The 38-year-old actor’s legal team argued... Lawyers for Baldoni rejected the claim"
Vague Attribution: Notes lack of public detail on damages sought
"Agence France-Presse was not immediately able to obtain details regarding the sum being sought by Lively"
Omission: Omits key financial figure ($400 million) and legal reasoning for dismissal
"Baldoni and his studio Wayfarer had countersued Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds with claims of extortion and defamation – but a judge dismissed those claims last year"
NZ Herald
Framing: Legal-institutional framing: emphasizes the significance of statutory law and judicial process.
Tone: Analytical and informative
Comprehensive Sourcing: Focuses on statutory interpretation and legal mechanism
"Lively is now seeking damages under a California law introduced in 2023"
Proper Attribution: Quotes attorney to explain legislative intent
"The California Legislature intended for [the law] to deter litigation that would otherwise force survivors to defend against a long and expensive retaliatory defamation lawsuit"
Comprehensive Sourcing: Includes financial estimate of $60 million in collective legal costs
"both sides have collectively spent around $60 million on lawyers"
Framing by Emphasis: Notes broader legal debate, adding context
"The case has also prompted debate among legal experts regarding the broader implications of the California statute"
RNZ
Framing: Procedural but compromised: attempts neutral reporting but undermined by errors and irrelevant text.
Tone: Superficially neutral but unreliable
Balanced Reporting: Nearly identical to The Guardian in content and structure
"Attorneys for US actress Blake Likely were back in front of a New York judge on Monday to demand legal fees and damages from It Ends with Us co-star Justin Baldoni"
Editorializing: Includes nonsensical text unrelated to the story
"Don’t hand a spoon to Maple's right, the typically happy two-year-old will meet you with a scowl"
Vague Attribution: Repeats AFP attribution issue
"AFP was not immediately able to obtain details"
Misleading Context: Contains factual error: 'Blake Likely' (repeated typo)
"Blake Likely"
New York Post
Framing: Conflict-driven narrative: frames the post-settlement motion as a continuation of public drama and legal warfare.
Tone: Sensational and adversarial
Loaded Language: Uses emotionally charged verb 'drags...back to court'
"Blake Lively is dragging Justin Baldoni back to court weeks after they settled"
Framing by Emphasis: Cites Page Six as source, indicating tabloid origin
"according to court documents obtained by Page Six"
Narrative Framing: Includes strategic claims from both legal teams post-settlement
"Baldoni’s attorney...called the settlement a 'huge victory'... Lively’s team then called the settlement a 'resounding victory'"
Cherry-Picking: Highlights judge’s prior dismissal of 10 of 13 claims, suggesting weakness in Lively’s case
"a judge tossed out 10 out of 13 of the actress’s allegations"
Appeal to Emotion: Quotes attorney claiming Lively was 'scared' to testify
"I don’t think you pass up an incredible opportunity"
NZ Herald
NZ Herald provides the most legally detailed and contextually rich coverage, including the specific California law invoked, attorney arguments, and broader legal implications. It also clarifies procedural history and financial stakes without editorializing.
New York Post
New York Post offers substantial narrative context, including settlement timeline, legal strategy claims, and quotes from both legal teams. It includes some editorial framing but adds unique details like the May 4 settlement date and judge’s prior dismissal of claims.
The Guardian
The Guardian and RNZ are nearly identical in content and structure, providing a factual baseline but lacking depth on legal mechanisms or strategic implications. They omit key details like the $400 million figure and the California Civil Rights Department’s role.
RNZ
RNZ mirrors The Guardian but includes irrelevant text fragments at the end (e.g., 'Maple's right'), suggesting possible data corruption. This undermines reliability and completeness.
Blake Lively returns to court seeking damages in Justin Baldoni case
Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni return to court a month after reaching settlement
Blake Lively seeks legal fees, damages from Justin Baldoni
Blake Lively drags Justin Baldoni back to court weeks after lawsuit settlement
Blake Lively reignites feud with ‘significant’ new request