A U.S. District Court judge has ordered actor Justin Baldoni to pay legal fees for Blake Lively following the dismissal of his $400 million defamation countersuit. However, Judge Lewis Liman denied Lively’s request for additional punitive and triple damages, ruling that California’s Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act does not permit an “end run” around standard federal procedural rules. The decision follows a May settlement that resolved the primary litigation between the two It Ends With Us co-stars.
Why were the requested punitive damages denied?
Judge Lewis Liman ruled that California’s Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act provides only a narrow exception to standard litigation, which does not include the recovery of punitive or compensatory damages. According to the court’s ruling, the legislation was not intended to bypass federal rules designed to protect the rights of all parties involved in a dispute. The judge found no evidence that Baldoni or his production company, Wayfarer Studios, acted with the malice required to trigger such penalties.
Did you know? Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) laws, which Lively’s legal team referenced during the June 1 hearing, are primarily designed to prevent plaintiffs from using defamation suits to silence critics or suppress free speech.
How does this ruling impact future defamation litigation?
This decision reinforces a strict interpretation of state-level anti-SLAPP statutes when applied within federal courtrooms. By limiting the scope of recovery to attorney fees, the court has signaled that such laws cannot be used to inflate settlement outcomes or impose massive punitive damages without clear, actionable evidence of malice. Legal analysts note that this sets a precedent for how production companies and actors handle workplace misconduct allegations in high-stakes entertainment disputes.
Legal perspectives on the settlement and fees
The resolution of the case has drawn starkly different interpretations from both legal camps. Bryan Freedman, an attorney representing Justin Baldoni, stated that the court’s decision validates his client’s position. “There was no sexual harassment. There was no retaliation. There was no smear campaign,” Freedman said in a statement. Conversely, Lively’s legal team argued during the June proceedings that she was a “prevailing defendant” entitled to more than just basic legal costs.
| Claim | Status |
|---|---|
| Recovery of legal fees | Granted |
| Punitive/Triple damages | Denied |
| Baldoni defamation suit | Dismissed |
Frequently Asked Questions
- Did Blake Lively win the case? The primary suit was settled in May with no monetary compensation for either side. Lively was awarded limited attorney fees, but her request for additional damages was denied.
- What was the basis of Baldoni’s lawsuit? Baldoni filed a $400 million defamation countersuit against Lively, which was dismissed in June 2025.
- Why did the judge deny the extra damages? Judge Liman determined that the California law cited by Lively’s team does not allow for punitive damages in this specific context.
Pro Tip: When tracking complex entertainment litigation, always look for filings from both the plaintiff and defendant to see how “prevailing party” status is defined, as this often dictates the outcome of fee-shifting motions.
Have thoughts on how these high-profile legal battles affect the entertainment industry? Join the discussion in the comments section below or subscribe to our legal beat newsletter for the latest updates.
d, without any additional comments or text.
[/gpt3]
Keep reading