A year after it exploded into public view, the legal war between Blake Lively and her It Ends With Us director and costar, Justin Baldoni, has become more than a courtroom clash — it’s a high-stakes test of power, credibility and who controls the narrative when Hollywood conflicts spill into the open. What began as whispers of a power struggle behind the scenes of a highly anticipated film has since unraveled into one of the most closely watched celebrity legal battles in years, stretching across court filings, leaked communications and an unforgiving spotlight.
The rupture went public in late December 2024, when Lively filed a legal complaint alleging Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, cofounded by billionaire Steve Sarowitz, retaliated against her after she raised sexual harassment concerns during production of the romantic drama. Within 24 hours, The New York Times published a bombshell exposé titled “We Can Bury Anyone,” detailing internal texts and emails from Baldoni’s PR team that appeared to outline an aggressive campaign to discredit the actress. Days later, on New Year’s Eve, Lively escalated the fight with a sweeping lawsuit accusing Baldoni, Wayfarer and their publicists of sexual harassment, fostering a hostile work environment and orchestrating a calculated smear campaign.
Baldoni, who has denied all wrongdoing, pushed back aggressively. He filed a $250 million libel suit against The New York Times and later a $400 million countersuit against Lively, her husband, Ryan Reynolds, and their longtime publicist, alleging defamation, extortion and invasion of privacy. What followed was months of legal and PR sparring, with each new filing fueling shocking headlines and hardening public opinion.
The conflict widened in spring 2025 when Baldoni’s filings dragged Taylor Swift into the dispute, claiming Lively enlisted her close friend to pressure him over script changes — a move that underscored the case’s expanding collateral damage. (“Blake and Taylor’s friendship is not what it used to be,” a source told Us Weekly at the time.) By summer, however, momentum appeared to shift: Baldoni’s $400 million countersuit and his case against The New York Times were dismissed, narrowing the battlefield and leaving Lively solely on offense. In amended filings, her team claimed she suffered more than $161 million in damages, with total losses projected to exceed $500 million.
Both sides are feeling the strain. One Lively source tells Us that as a mom of four (daughters James, 11, Inez, 9, and Betty, 6, and son Olin, 2), the actress “puts on a brave and positive face for her family and work, but the retaliation has taken a toll.” Adds a second: “Blake is the exact wrong person to attack with retaliation and shame tactics, because no matter how much pain she’s in, the truth, integrity and making something positive for others out of all she’s experienced is what drives her. She is resilient and won’t be intimidated. She will stay the course until she feels justice has been served.”
Blake Lively, Justin Baldoni’s Teams Mark 1 Year of ‘It Ends With Us’ Drama
Baldoni and his team are “exhausted,” says a source close to them. “They’ve had to continuously try to show that protecting themselves and their families is simply that — and not retaliation.” The source adds that Baldoni’s family (he shares daughter Maiya, 10, and son Maxwell, 7, with wife Emily Baldoni) and friends “just want this nightmare to be over for them. [They believe] the public has caught on to the truth and the reality of what happened [and] they are ready for their day in court.”
Now, with the trial delayed until May 18, the case enters a pivotal phase. The question is no longer just what happened on set — but who has gained leverage, who has lost credibility and whether either side can emerge intact. So, where does that leave the scorecard for Lively and Baldoni one year in? Legal experts, PR strategists and industry insiders share their perspective on who holds the advantage in court and what the fallout could mean for both stars as they inch closer to a jury showdown.
LIVELY VS. BALDONI: WHO HAS LEGAL ADVANTAGE?
Tre Lovell, entertainment and defamation lawyer: So far, Lively has racked up more wins, largely because of the court dismissing Baldoni’s $400 million cross-complaint, as well as the fact that he will have to pay attorneys’ fees and certain damages related to having it dismissed. He still has a chance of settling, but the leverage of Lively potentially having to pay him is gone.
Lisa Bloom, civil rights attorney: Lively’s side has the advantage, since Baldoni’s aggressive countersuit against her, claiming defamation and extortion, was thrown out. Also, his lawsuit against The New York Times for simply reporting the filing of her complaint — in a manner definitely sympathetic to her — was also tossed. She is now only on offense, and he is only on defense.
WHO HAS THE ADVANTAGE IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION?
Mark Borkowski, PR expert: Lively has controlled the narrative largely because Baldoni torched his own credibility early and then kept adding petrol. The NYT exposé froze him in the public imagination, and every subsequent overreach — the mega-lawsuits, the lawsuit website, the Swift subpoena — only reinforced the sense of a man fighting gravity. [In February 2025, Baldoni launched a website that features his amended complaint and a timeline of events; Swift was issued a subpoena in early May, but it was withdrawn shortly after.] Lively’s camp hasn’t been flawless, but they’ve been disciplined, consistent and professionally insulated. A year on, the broad perception hasn’t shifted: she looks strategic and steady; he looks like he’s still trying to claw back a story that slipped away long ago.
WHO’S WINNING ON YOUR OVERALL SCORECARD?
Lovell: Lively is up, but she very well could still lose at trial.
Bloom: Lively [is] way up. Baldoni’s bull-in-a-china-shop tactics have demolished his own side. He lost against the NYT, lost his claims against Lively [and] his effort to depose Swift [was] admonished by the judge several times. Ouch.
LIVELY VS. BALDONI: WHOSE REPUTATION HAS SUFFERED MORE?
Courtney Lupilin, talent manager: Directors usually feel reputation turbulence more strongly because the public ties behind-the-scenes conflict to leadership. Actors tend to have more frequent projects and visibility to stabilize their image, so the impact is generally softer. This has also hurt [Lively’s] reputation. Every day, something new comes out that doesn’t make her look good.
LIVELY VS. BALDONI: WHAT ARE THE LONG-TERM CAREER IMPLICATIONS?
Lupilin: They were part of this huge legal public battle, so [no matter the] outcome, this will affect them both professionally. Brands do not want to work with people who could be problematic.
Podcaster Deletes Justin Baldoni Episode Amid Blake Lively Lawsuit
LIVELY VS. BALDONI: DOES THE TRIAL DELAY SIGNIFY ANYTHING, AND WHO DOES IT BENEFIT?
John Carpenter, lawyer, cofounder of Carpenter & Zuckerman: Criminal cases take precedence over civil matters, and courts today are overburdened and undersourced. A delay of a couple of months isn’t unusual and doesn’t necessarily signal anything about the strength of either side’s case. Delays tend to benefit the party with more power because [they] can better withstand the wait, and the delay itself often increases their leverage.
Bloom: A two-month delay is not significant. And the judge [Judge Lewis J. Liman] is correct: It doesn’t matter that this case involves A-list celebrities; criminal trials must go first because defendants’ liberty is at stake. [After Baldoni’s team said in July that Lively was being given “special treatment” because of her status, Liman said, “As far as I’m concerned, whether they have celebrity at the moment or not is irrelevant.”]
BALDONI’S COUNTERSUIT WAS DISMISSED. HOW SIGNIFICANT IS THAT?
Bloom: Seismic. He will now go into court only as the accused, not an accuser. [Lively] will not be required to pay him anything, and he could be ordered to pay the $500 million in damages she says she can prove.
DOES THE JUDGE APPEAR MORE SKEPTICAL OF ONE SIDE OVER THE OTHER? HE WARNED LIVELY AND BALDONI ABOUT TRYING THE CASE IN THE PRESS.
Lovell: The judge is taking a shot across the bow to make sure out-of-court statements and publicity don’t get out of hand. In high-profile cases, it’s not unusual for a judge to dissuade trying the case in the press.
Bloom: Baldoni’s using the litigation for PR showmanship. [In May, Liman struck a letter from Baldoni’s team that accused Lively of extorting Swift for support by threatening to release private texts between them. Liman called the filing an attempt to “promote public scandal.”] When a lawyer loses credibility with a judge, it’s hard to regain it, and the client suffers. We’ll see if the judge’s frustration with Baldoni’s team doing the very thing Lively accuses Baldoni of — smearing her in the press for accusing him of sexual harassment — spills over into the trial. Getting admonished in front of a jury is devastating.
LIVELY VS. BALDONI: WHAT SHOULD WE EXPECT AT TRIAL?
Lovell: Lively will have a difficult time proving her case. This is not a typical office workplace where physical touching and romantic conduct would clearly be unlawful. This is a movie set for a film based on domestic violence, which requires touching, physical contact [and] kissing. The relationship between Baldoni and Lively at the beginning of filming will also be key. Were they playful with each other and opening up about private things, or was it more of a professional environment, thus making intimate questions offensive?
Bloom: Trial lawyers start anew when they walk into trial. Lively’s team must remain humble and vigilant. They must sell her — an A-list celebrity — as a relatable sexual harassment victim. They must tell the story in a way that an everyday person can relate to her. She’ll have the burden of proof, and they must meet it on every claim.
Breaking Down Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni’s ‘It Ends With Us’ Drama
LIVELY VS. BALDONI: WHAT DO THEIR LAWYERS SAY?
Lively’s attorneys, Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb, tell Us she sees the case as an opportunity to stand up for other victims. “One year ago, Blake Lively filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department to continue to stand up for a safe workplace after the experiences she and others had on the film It Ends With Us,” say Hudson and Gottlieb, noting that despite “a billionaire-financed effort to bury her,” Lively is “more determined than ever to shine a light on the forces that work behind the scenes to silence and discredit women who dare speak up.”
Baldoni’s attorney, Bryan Freedman, tells Us his clients are “deeply grateful for the support and kind words they’ve received over the past year,” adding that they trust that the truth will ultimately prevail. “At the same time,” adds Freedman, “we recognize that there are many other issues affecting the world that deserve even greater attention and compassion, particularly at this time of year. We hope the focus remains on supporting those who need it most and that we continue to look out for one another.”
For more on Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, watch the exclusive video above and pick up the latest issue of Us Weekly — on newsstands now.
