In a significant legal victory, Justin Baldoni has successfully had all sexual harassment claims brought against him by actress Blake Lively dismissed by a judge. This decision precedes their upcoming trial.
The co-stars of “It Ends With Us” have been embroiled in a legal dispute since December 2024. However, Judge Lewis Liman’s recent ruling leaves Lively, 39, with only three remaining allegations to pursue: breach of contract, retaliation, and aiding and abetting retaliation.
Despite the narrowed scope of the case, the trial is still set to commence on May 18 in New York City, marking a pivotal moment for Lively’s now significantly reduced claims.
Efforts to obtain comments from representatives of both Baldoni and Lively have been made by the Daily Mail.
Among Lively’s accusations were claims that Baldoni overstepped professional boundaries during the filming of “It Ends With Us.” She alleged that he kissed her in a scene where it was not scripted, entered her trailer while she was breastfeeding, and that a producer showed her a video of his wife giving birth.
In his ruling, Judge Lewis Liman said that legal contracts that Lively cited for her claim were ‘unenforceable’ because she didn’t sign them.
Justin Baldoni has secured a major win over Blake Lively as a judge has dismissed all of the actress’ sexual harassment claims against him ahead of their trial; (pictured February)
A somber looking Lively is seen arriving at court on Februay 11 2026
The It Ends With us co-stars have been locked in legal drama since December 2024 – but Judge Lewis Liman’s decision today means the actress, 39, has only three claims left to argue
Join the discussion
Did Lively just lose her strongest argument?
In particular, Lively did not sign the Actor Loanout Agreement, or ALA, which would have governed sexual harassment on set, after squabbling with Baldoni’s team for months about the terms.
In his 152-page ruling, the judge wrote: ‘It is clear that the ALA is not and has never been a validly formed and binding contract, as IEWUM (It Ends With Us Movie) unambiguously expressed an intent not to be bound absent a fully executed and signed agreement’.
The judge disagreed with Lively for claiming she could sue because there was ‘no evidence the parties disagreed over the rest of the provision’ regarding sexual harassment.
‘That slices matters too finely,’ Judge Liman said.
‘The question whether Lively would have the unilateral right to halt production of the film if in her view sexual harassment occurred is hardly inconsequential. The fact that the parties were not able to come to terms on such provision provides powerful evidence that no contract had yet been formed’.
Judge Liman also disagreed with Lively’s pleading that she could sue using the ALA because of Baldoni’s discussions about it.
The ruling stated: ‘The court disagrees. Considering Lively’s evidence both in isolation and as a whole, it fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact concerning formation of the ALA’.
In a blunt part of the ruling, Judge Liman said: ‘‘Ultimately, Lively fails to confront what is the central dilemma in her claim.
‘She contends that the ALA became binding on IEWUM at some point while the parties were still negotiating it, but she cannot pinpoint a time when the parties began to be bound by it or which version of the ALA they were bound to.
In his ruling, Judge Lewis Liman said that legal contracts that Lively cited for her claim were ‘unenforceable’ because she didn’t sign them
‘Unless both parties are bound, neither party is bound.
‘Which draft of the ALA bound Lively? Was it the version that lacked the sexual harassment provision?’
In his ruling, Judge Liman knocked down another of Lively’s arguments and said she ‘gets things backwards’.
It was in response to the idea that simply because Baldoni had paid her allowed to sue under the ALA.
However the judge said that Lively’s claims under another legal contract, the Contract Rider Agreement, or CRA, ‘stand on firmer ground’, specially the part that relates to not allowing retaliation for raising concerns about conduct on set.
The CRA was signed in January 2024 by Jamey Heath, the producer of the film, and included a list of 17 requirements in order for Lively to return to filming.
Baldoni has claimed that he felt they had little choice in order for the film to be completed.
Among the provisions was that there would be no improvised sex scenes of any kind.
The judge disagreed with Lively for claiming she could sue because there was ‘no evidence the parties disagreed over the rest of the provision’ regarding sexual harassment
Judge Liman cited in particular the part which said there should be ‘no retaliation of any kind against Artist for raising concerns about the conduct described in this letter.
According to the judge, the fact Lively took such control over the film meant that her claims failed too.
In order for them to proceed under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Labor Code, Lively had to be an employee of It Ends With Us.
But Judge Liman said that the ‘undisputed facts reveal that Lively enjoyed a degree of economic independence sufficient to make her an independent contractor’, meaning those laws did not apply to her.
He reeled off a litany of things that Lively required for her services including a 12 hour cap on days, choosing 90 percent of the songs on the film, ‘overseeing every shot that makes it into the film’, soliciting feedback from test screenings and choosing which takes would make it into the final film.
Judge Liman said: ‘Although not every factor weighs equally in favor of that conclusion when viewed in isolation, analyzing the factors collectively eliminates any genuine dispute. That means that Lively cannot bring a claim’.
In the ruling, the judge said that Lively not only had substantial contractual control over her participation in the film, but she exercised that control’.
Judge Liman said: ‘She played a part in hiring and firing assistants, negotiated for the relocation of filming to be closer to her home, rewrote the script, conducted meetings with all department heads and the studio, oversaw a team of editors, and played a central part in shaping the Film’s “look,” marketing, and release.
In his ruling, Judge Liman (pictured) knocked down another of Lively’s arguments and said she ‘gets things backwards’
‘She enjoyed the economic independence to walk at any moment with the only consequence being that she would potentially be in breach of contract.
‘And she exercised that independence in negotiating the terms under which she would return to work. She also enjoyed equity in the film’.
Turning to the retaliation claims, the judge said that a jury might find that she ‘opposed practices that she subjectively believed constituted sexual harassment’.
However the judge noted that Baldoni’s team claimed that she used those claims as a ‘cudgel for control over the film’.
The judge wrote: ‘A reasonable jury could find that Lively also genuinely experienced what happened on set as discriminatory. The two are not mutually exclusive.
‘There is at least a triable issue with respect to whether Lively sincerely experienced what happened on set as sexually harassing.
‘Viewed in the light most favorable to Lively, there is also sufficient evidence that it was reasonable for her to believe that the Wayfarer Parties sexually harassed her by creating a hostile work environment’.
The judge said that several of the incidents that Lively had cited ‘would not support a hostile work environment claim or would do so, at most, only minimally or in context’.
But others ‘come closer’ to stating a claim.
The judge was dismissive of the idea that Baldoni telling Lively he was circumcised was discriminatory because it occurred within the context of a discussion about the issue.
‘It therefore could not have created a hostile work environment’, the judge said.
Judge Liman disagreed that the idea of Baldoni adding more sexual acts into the film was discrimatory.
‘It would be ‘neither surprising nor unreasonable from a creative standpoint’ for both Baldoni and Lively to have drafted sexually explicit material, even if some of it was not to the taste of the other’, the judge wrote.
In a major blow to Lively, the judge said that her complaints of ‘fat-shaming’ could ‘not reasonably support a claim’.
The allegation related to Baldoni asking Lively’s personal trainer if he knew how much she would weigh when filming began, a question which found its way back to her.
Another occasion Baldoni introduced Lively to a specialist in probiotics who also specialised in weight loss.
Judge Liman wrote: ‘The conduct cannot reasonably be viewed as expressing hostility to Lively as a woman or to women in general.
‘The physical appearance of the protagonists was part of the product that the producers were intending to offer the audience. Lively herself recognized that achieving a “certain aesthetic” was “part of the job that we both excitedly signed up for.
‘She asked Baldoni if they could do “the body scenes at the end of the schedule” so that she would have sufficient time to work out, she wrote to her agent privately that she was “working out twice a day, 4 hours a day” in order to lose weight and set the movie up for success, as the “sexiness in this film and the marketing I’m sure, is critical to its success”.
‘And she told Baldoni, “My husband and I both look at certain roles as athletic events. And this is one of them…and that’s great’.
‘Given these statements, Baldoni’s actions – even if they could be viewed as gently pushing Lively to lose weight, which is not necessarily supported by the evidence – could not fairly be described as discrimination “because of” Lively’s gender’
The latest news in the case comes as the contentious legal battle between Lively and Baldoni has gone on more than a year.
In December of 2024, Lively named Baldoni in a lawsuit accusing him of sexual harassment, retaliatory conduct, and intentional infliction of emotional stress.
In her lawsuit, the actress accused Baldoni of sexually harassing her in multiple ways – including body shaming her – and orchestrating a smear campaign against her to damage her reputation.
In her lawsuit, Lively named a number of Baldoni’s collaborators, including his company Wayfarer Studios, the studio’s CEO and financial backer, and PR personnel.
Baldoni had initially asked for $250 million in damages from The New York Times, mentioning a report it published on the topic that he claimed was defamatory, then added it to the $400 million lawsuit he filed this past January.
In the suit, Baldoni named Lively, her spouse Ryan Reynolds and her publicist Leslie Sloane, citing the aforementioned report in legal documents. It was thrown out of court this past June. All parties have denied all of the allegations against them.
This past month, attorneys for Lively said Baldoni and his legal team had stepped over the line with ‘probative’ inquisitions over her sex life in depositions linked to the case.
‘Ms. Lively’s sexual and/or romantic history has no bearing on the matters at issue in this case and we will not tolerate such examination, which will be the subject of a protective order and sanctions motion if it happens again,’ her legal team told the court December 19, Page Six reported.
Lively’s legal team also claimed Baldoni’s attorneys displayed a ‘lack of basic decorum’ during deposition with inappropriate behavior such as ‘insulting comments, audible cross-talk and laughter during examination.’
Baldoni described the situation involving Lively’s demands as ‘a gigantic clusterf***;’ (pictured December 2024 in NYC)
It Ends with Us earned $148 million in domestic box office and $350 million globally – but whatever goodwill the film garnered has since been overshadowed by the allegations made by its stars.
The motion picture, which also starred Jenny Slate, Hasan Minhaj, Brandon Sklenar and Kevin McKidd, was based on the 2016 novel by Colleen Hoover.
The storyline of the film centered around a toxic relationship between Lily Bloom (played by Lively) and Ryle Kincaid (Baldoni).
According to a logline for the film, Lily ‘overcomes a traumatic childhood to embark on a new life,’ as ‘a chance meeting with a neurosurgeon sparks a connection but Lily begins to see sides of him that remind her of her parents’ relationship.’
