A federal judge on Monday officially threw out Justin Baldoni’s headline-grabbing $400 million defamation lawsuit against Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds. The court determined that the allegations at the heart of the case—accusations of sexual harassment made by Lively—were legally protected under existing privileges and therefore could not be used as grounds for a defamation suit.
U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled to dismiss Baldoni’s expansive lawsuit, which didn’t stop at defamation but also accused the parties of extortion and contract interference. While most of the claims were rejected outright, the court did leave the door open for Baldoni to amend and refile certain allegations, specifically those related to alleged interference with contractual relationships.
“This is a sweeping victory and total vindication for Blake Lively and everyone wrongfully entangled in Baldoni’s retaliatory claims,” Lively’s legal team declared in a public statement following the decision. “The court clearly recognized that this so-called ‘$400 million’ lawsuit lacked substance from the start. We’re now preparing to pursue attorneys’ fees, treble damages, and punitive damages against Baldoni, Sarowitz, Nathan, and the Wayfarer Parties who abused the legal system with this meritless litigation.”
Lively had previously filed her own lawsuit against Baldoni in federal court, claiming she was the target of sexual harassment and subsequent retaliation after she raised concerns about the working environment on the set of the upcoming film It Ends With Us, which Baldoni is producing. According to her suit, following her complaint, Baldoni and other members of the production team allegedly launched a defamation campaign aimed at discrediting her professionally and personally.
Baldoni responded with a counter-lawsuit, seeking a staggering $400 million in damages. His complaint accused Lively, Reynolds, their longtime publicist Leslie Sloane, and The New York Times of conspiring to ruin his reputation and destroy his career through false and malicious accusations. The court, however, found that the statements initially made by Lively to the California Civil Rights Department and later shared with The Times were covered by what’s known as the litigation privilege—legal protection that shields individuals from defamation claims when statements are made as part of a legal or quasi-legal proceeding.
In addition, Judge Liman ruled that The New York Times‘ coverage of the claims was protected by the “fair report” privilege. This legal doctrine protects media outlets reporting on official proceedings, provided their coverage is fair and substantially accurate.
As for Reynolds, who was cited in the lawsuit for allegedly referring to Baldoni as a “sexual predator,” the judge determined that his remarks were not independently defamatory. Instead, the court concluded that Reynolds was simply relying on his wife’s account of events—an account that, the judge said, he had no reason to question or doubt.
Blake Lively’s publicist, Leslie Sloane, was also cleared of any wrongdoing. Baldoni had accused Sloane of defamation in her interactions with The Daily Mail, but the court found that she too was operating based on Lively’s report and could not be held liable for repeating her client’s narrative.
In the end, the ruling dismantled the majority of Baldoni’s legal challenge, painting it as a retaliatory strike cloaked in high-dollar damages. The legal back-and-forth is far from over, though. With Lively’s team now seeking compensatory and punitive damages, the next chapter in this Hollywood legal saga is already underway.
