Blake Lively Won a Major Legal Round Against Justin Baldoni, and His Wallet Is Going to Feel It

A federal judge handed Blake Lively a significant win on June 12, ruling that her former “It Ends With Us” director Justin Baldoni must cover her attorneys’ fees and litigation costs from their months-long legal battle.

According to PEOPLE, U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman granted Lively’s request for relief under California Civil Code Section 47.1, a law specifically designed to protect people who report sexual harassment from being buried in retaliatory lawsuits. The exact dollar amount has yet to be determined, but given the scale of this case, it is not expected to be small.

The ruling lands after one of the messiest, most talked-about celebrity legal sagas in recent memory, one that dragged two Hollywood names through headlines for the better part of two years. And the drama? Far from over.

So What Actually Happened Here?

To understand why this ruling matters, you have to go back to where it all started. In December 2024, Lively, 38, filed a lawsuit accusing Baldoni, 42, of sexual harassment and retaliation during the production of “It Ends With Us.”

She alleged that Baldoni ran a coordinated smear campaign against her after she raised concerns on set. Baldoni denied everything. He then went on the offensive, filing a $400 million defamation lawsuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, publicist Leslie Sloane, and others.

The counterclaim did not survive. Judge Liman dismissed Baldoni’s $400 million lawsuit in its entirety earlier this year, ruling that Lively’s original complaints were legally privileged. That dismissal was a significant blow to Baldoni’s team, and he has since filed an appeal.

The two sides then settled the underlying case just two weeks before trial, with both camps immediately running to the press claiming victory. Lively’s lawyers called it “a resounding victory for Blake Lively.” Baldoni’s attorney, Bryan Freedman, countered that the settlement proved her claims lacked merit.

The catch: Lively did not receive any monetary payout as part of that settlement, even though she had originally sought $300 million in damages across the combined litigation. With the settlement finalized, the question became whether Lively could still return to court to recover attorneys’ fees and additional damages under California law. That fight is exactly what played out in the latest ruling.

The Law That Changed Everything

California Civil Code Section 47.1 is the quiet powerhouse at the center of this latest chapter. The law, rooted in protections developed during the #MeToo era, essentially says that if you report sexual harassment in good faith and then get sued for defamation as a result, and you prevail, you are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and potentially treble damages for any harm suffered.

Lively’s team argued she qualified under every part of that statute. Baldoni’s lawyers pushed back hard, claiming at a June hearing that she was attempting what they called “an end run around a jury trial” by trying to recover damages without proving her claims before a jury.

Lively’s attorney, Mike Gottlieb, fired back that the statute expressly allows prevailing parties to seek those fees and costs, and that Baldoni’s team could not suddenly reject California law after previously advocating for it to govern the dispute.

Judge Liman sided with Lively on the core question. According to the ruling, Baldoni’s legal team, referred to in court documents as the Wayfarer Parties, failed to prove that Lively acted with malice or brought her claims in bad faith.

The judge wrote directly in the ruling that the Wayfarer Parties “provided little evidence in connection with the motion, and none establishing that Lively acted with malice.” That finding is significant because malice is the standard required to strip someone of protections under Section 47.1.

What She Got, and What She Didn’t

The ruling was a partial win. Judge Liman granted Lively’s request for attorneys’ fees and litigation costs tied specifically to Baldoni’s counterclaim under the California statute. However, he denied her request to seek treble and punitive damages in this motion.

The judge clarified that Lively can still seek those damages through different legal mechanisms, and the parties’ settlement agreement reportedly preserves her right to do so.

Lively’s attorneys, Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb, released a statement confirming the outcome. “Today’s 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 statement read, according to PEOPLE.

They added that the ruling shows how laws like Section 47.1 create a path for survivors to hold accountable those who use online attacks and retaliatory lawsuits to intimidate them into silence.

Both Sides Are Still Spinning Hard

Predictably, both legal teams immediately declared their own version of victory. Freedman said in a statement that Lively “was only awarded limited attorney fees for a single claim as part of a case that lasted only a matter of months, nothing more.”

He argued that ten of her thirteen claims were dismissed and that she settled and “received nothing.” He characterized her pursuit of damages under Section 47.1 as a failed attempt to exploit a law meant for real victims.

Lively’s team clapped back just as fast, calling Freedman’s statement a “pack of lies” and pointing out that just weeks earlier, his clients had acknowledged that her concerns “deserved to be heard.” Her attorneys added pointedly: “People who do nothing wrong don’t have to pay millions of dollars, which is where this is headed now.”

Next is a hearing to determine the actual dollar amount that Lively is owed for fees and costs. Both sides previously agreed to waive any appeal of Liman’s ruling on this specific motion, meaning that whatever number is set sticks. For anyone watching this saga unfold, one thing is increasingly clear: the “It Ends With Us” credits rolled a long time ago, but this particular story is still very much in progress.