Blake Lively awarded legal fees in Justin Baldoni dispute, but no damages
A federal judge ruled Friday that Blake Lively can recover legal fees from Justin Baldoni after his defamation countersuit was dismissed, but she is not entitled to triple or punitive damages.
How the lawsuit unfolded
Lively sued Baldoni in December 2024, alleging sexual harassment during the filming of 'It Ends With Us' and a retaliatory smear campaign. Baldoni, who directed and co-starred in the film, denied the allegations and countersued, accusing Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds of defamation and extortion. His $400 million defamation claims were dismissed by the court last year.
The settlement and the California law
In May 2026, just before a trial was set to begin, the two reached a settlement. Lively received no money but retained the right to seek legal fees and potentially damages under a California law. That law, Civil Code Section 47.1, is aimed at protecting survivors of sexual harassment from retaliatory lawsuits.
The judge's ruling
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman issued a 47-page order in which he found that Lively is entitled to attorneys' fees and costs because Baldoni's defamation claim was dismissed and there was no evidence of malice.
In the end, and stepping back, the policy Section 47.1 achieves is far simpler than the analysis its application requires: The statute ensures that if a plaintiff invokes California law to bring a defamation claim against a defendant for making statements regarding sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination, and the defendant succeeds in dismissing the claim, the plaintiff must pay the defendant's legal fees and costs unless it turns out that the statements were made with malice.
The judge, however, denied her request for treble and punitive damages, saying they do not fit within "carefully crafted federal procedural rules."
Reaction
Blake Lively's legal team welcomed the ruling.
Blake Lively won her motion under Civil Code Section 47.1. 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.
Representatives for Baldoni did not respond to requests for comment.
What remains
The order leaves open the possibility for Lively to pursue damages through other legal means, such as a separate lawsuit or counterclaim. For now, the ruling brings a close to the fee-recovery phase of the high-profile dispute.
