Justin Baldoni must pay Blake Lively’s 'It Ends With Us' legal fees

Justin Baldoni has been ordered to pay Blake Lively’s legal fees in the 'It Ends With Us' defamation dispute, with Judge Lewis Liman ruling Friday that Lively is entitled to attorneys' fees after Baldoni lost his claims. Liman also ruled that Baldoni is not liable for additional damages caused by his own defamation lawsuit against her. In other words, the court settled the big question of fee-shifting, even as it limited the scope of what Baldoni owes beyond defense costs.

This comes one month after the two co-stars reached a settlement in court, a resolution that itself arrived only two weeks before the legal battle was set to move toward a federal trial stage. Under that settlement, Baldoni waived his right to appeal the court’s decision on his own $400 million lawsuit against Lively, which had been formally dismissed last year. The procedural posture matters here because it signals the fight was already winding down, but Friday’s order shows the final tab for legal work can still arrive after the main headline moments.

At the center of Liman’s ruling is California’s Protecting Survivors from Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act, which the judge refers to as Section 47.1. This 2023 California law is designed to protect sexual harassment, abuse, and discrimination victims from retaliatory defamation lawsuits. The mechanism is straightforward: if a plaintiff brings a defamation claim under this framework and the defendant succeeds in dismissing it, the plaintiff must pay the defendant’s legal fees and costs unless it turns out that the statements were made with malice.

Liman’s order concluded that Lively’s statements “come within the purview of Section 47.1” and that she prevailed on her defense. The judge found “no evidence of malice,” and on that record, ruled that “Accordingly, she is entitled to attorneys’ fees under Section 47.1.” The practical effect is that the spotlight shifts from whether the claims were brought and dismissed to how much litigation spending should be reimbursed.

That is where the process moves next. TheWrap reports that the next steps involve the court determining how much in legal fees Baldoni will be obligated to pay Lively. As part of that fee calculation process, Lively’s legal team is expected to submit a comprehensive breakdown of their wages paid and resources used throughout the case. So while the broader fight is described as “bringing an end” to a battle that raged for nearly two years, this is not a clean zero-sum closure. It is the closing argument, financially speaking: bills, time, and resources turned into a number the court will approve.

The allegations and counter-allegations that fueled the dispute also matter because they explain why Section 47.1 was the governing frame. Lively accused Baldoni of not only sexually harassing her on the set of 'It Ends With Us' but also of coordinating an online smear campaign against her. In response, Baldoni and his Wayfarer Studios attempted to mount their own defamation lawsuit, accusing Lively of making false claims of harassment in a way that would tarnish Baldoni’s reputation and “hijack” the 'It Ends With Us' adaptation. That defamation suit was dismissed, setting the stage for Friday’s fee-shifting ruling.

For executives, investors, and board members watching from the outside, the second-order implications are hard to ignore. This is a celebrity-backed film production story, yes, but it is also a case study in how quickly litigation strategy can get rerouted by legislation. A plaintiff’s attempt to use defamation claims as a reputational counterpunch can backfire when a jurisdiction provides a statute designed to deter weaponized lawsuits. Section 47.1 changes incentives: it increases the downside of losing and the uncertainty of winning, because legal fees can become the default consequence rather than a cost that stays internal.

It also highlights a broader trend in risk management for public-facing companies and creatives: disputes are no longer just about damages, they are about fee recovery, malice standards, and the regulatory lens a court applies. Here, Judge Liman’s focus on whether there was evidence of malice under Section 47.1 becomes the gatekeeper for cost shifting. That is a reminder that in modern litigation, statutory framing can decide outcomes even when the public remembers only the most emotionally charged allegations.

Finally, for peers in similar roles, the strategic takeaway is simple but serious. When co-founder and co-star dynamics collide with allegations of harassment, defamation litigation can spiral into a multi-front process where settlements arrive but final costs still land later. The settlement one month ago and the federal trial timeline that never fully took off did not stop the legal machinery. Friday’s order shows that once a court decides fee eligibility under a statute like Section 47.1, the fight can continue in a quieter form: spreadsheets, declarations, and court-approved reimbursement. For anyone managing communications, legal posture, or reputational risk, this is the part that keeps you up. The story may end, but the bill does not.