Blake Lively Justin Baldoni Settlement: Who Won, What Was Settled and the $407,451 Fee Award

Baldoni's side points to the 10 of 13 Lively claims dismissed before trial and the absence of a settlement payment. Lively's side points to the fee award and to Baldoni's waiver of any appeal. Below we set out what the stipulation says, what is and is not public about the terms, and the law on retaliation, confidentiality, defamation and anti-SLAPP rules.

Blake Lively Justin Baldoni settlement at a glance

The settlement closed both lawsuits, waived every appeal and left one question for the judge: whether Lively could recover fees and damages under Section 47.1. The main steps, from the docket and the reporting cited:

Date	Event	Outcome
20 Dec 2024	Lively complains to the California Civil Rights Department	Alleges harassment and a retaliatory smear campaign
31 Dec 2024	Lively sues in federal court in New York	Case assigned to Judge Liman
Jan 2025	Wayfarer Studios, Baldoni and others countersue	$400 million defamation and extortion claims
9 Jun 2025	Wayfarer complaint dismissed	Defamation claim against Lively dismissed with prejudice
2 Apr 2026	Summary judgment in Lively's case	Harassment claims dismissed, retaliation claims survive
4 to 7 May 2026	Joint statement, then stipulation so-ordered	Case dismissed with prejudice, appeals waived
12 Jun 2026	Section 47.1 ruling	Fees granted, treble and punitive damages denied
27 Jul 2026	New York state court ruling for The New York Times	Wayfarer to pay $171,616.20 under anti-SLAPP law
26 Aug 2026	Fee opinion	$363,245.40 in fees plus $44,206.35 in costs

What did Blake Lively sue Justin Baldoni for?

Lively alleged that she was sexually harassed during production of the 2024 film and that Baldoni, his production company Wayfarer Studios and their publicists then retaliated with a campaign to damage her reputation. According to Judge Liman's opinion of 12 June 2026, she filed with the California Civil Rights Department on 20 December 2024, received a "right to sue" notice and sued in New York on 31 December 2024. Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties denied the allegations throughout.

The case narrowed sharply. On 2 April 2026 the judge dismissed the harassment claims, holding that Lively was an independent contractor, not an employee, and so could not bring them under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Associated Press reported. Retaliation claims survived, with trial set for 18 May 2026. By then, Baldoni's lawyer Bryan Freedman said, 10 of 13 claims had gone, including every harassment and defamation claim, the Los Angeles Times reported. Retaliation claims are a familiar feature of US employment litigation, as in the bias and retaliation suit against JPMorgan.

What the settlement says, and what isn't public

The stipulation filed on 7 May 2026 is the best public evidence of what the Blake Lively Justin Baldoni settlement did. It binds Lively and the Wayfarer parties: Wayfarer Studios, It Ends With Us Movie LLC, Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Steve Sarowitz, The Agency Group PR, Melissa Nathan and Jennifer Abel. It has three operative terms:

1. No appeals. All parties "irrevocably waive any appeal of any orders" in the consolidated action, including the June 2025 dismissal of the Wayfarer complaint.
2. Section 47.1 preserved. Lively "does not release, and retains all claims, rights, and remedies" in her pending motion for fees, treble damages and punitive damages, and both sides waive any appeal from the court's decision on it.
3. Dismissal. Lively's action is dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), so the claims cannot be brought again.

The joint statement said the parties "recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard", ABC News reported. In June, Freedman published the full agreement; according to ABC News, it ends the litigation, bars future claims related to the dispute, includes the joint statement and leaves the Section 47.1 request to the court. Variety reported that it had confirmed Lively received no compensation. No settlement amount has been filed with the court.

Who won, and why the case settled before trial

Both sides claimed victory. Lively's lawyers, Michael Gottlieb and Esra Hudson, called the deal "a resounding victory for Blake Lively"; Freedman called it "a win and total victory for the Wayfarer parties". The record supports a split result. Lively lost her harassment claims, took no settlement payment according to the reporting, and recovered about 5% of the fees and costs she sought. The Wayfarer parties lost their $400 million suit, gave up their appeal, failed to show that Lively acted with malice and were ordered to pay her fees.

The reasons to settle were visible on the docket:

• Narrowed claims. Lively would have tried only retaliation claims, without the harassment allegations.
• Appeal leverage. The court entered final judgment against the Wayfarer parties on 31 October 2025 but delayed their time to appeal until the Section 47.1 motion was decided. Giving that appeal up was a real concession.
• Cost and risk. Both sides avoided the multimillion-dollar cost of a federal trial, Variety noted, and a jury's view of the evidence.
• Message control. A joint statement gives each side agreed words, which a verdict never does.

A deal on the eve of a liability trial is a familiar pattern far from Hollywood, as in Vodafone's £85 million franchisee settlement in London. More disputes of this kind are in our Sports and Entertainment newsroom.

Did Blake Lively win her lawsuit? Section 47.1 and the $407,451 fee award

On the question the settlement left open, Lively won on fees and lost on damages. Section 47.1, enacted in California in 2023 in response to the #MeToo movement, makes a communication "made by an individual, without malice, regarding an incident of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination" privileged where the person had a reasonable basis to complain. A prevailing defendant in a defamation suit over such a communication is entitled to fees, costs, treble damages and punitive damages.

In the 12 June opinion, Judge Liman held that once a defendant shows a communication is of the protected kind, the plaintiff must prove actual malice. The Wayfarer parties offered three deposition extracts, mostly about where filming took place, and the evidence "falls far short". Damages failed for a procedural reason: a post-judgment motion under Federal Rule 54(d) is built for fees, and Section 47.1 "does not create an end run around the entire set of carefully crafted federal procedural rules". The judge suggested damages might more naturally be sought by counterclaim, with discovery and a jury, but did not decide whether any separate claim would succeed.

Lively then asked for $8,035,040.88: $7,495,526.87 in fees and $539,514.01 in costs. In his opinion of 26 August 2026, the judge awarded $363,245.40 in fees and $44,206.35 in costs. She was entitled to fees for defending the Wayfarer defamation claim, not for her own lawsuit, and her claim for more than $5.2 million of work "associated and intertwined" with both cases was a "blunderbuss approach" that left the court unable to identify the hours reasonably spent on common issues. He also cut time for internal conferences, vague or redacted entries and media work. Because both sides waived any appeal, the award stands.

Defamation, anti-SLAPP rules, NDAs and what happens next

Baldoni's defamation claims failed on privilege, not on any finding that Lively's allegations were true. In June 2025 the court held that California's fair report privilege protected Lively's giving her complaint to The New York Times, because it covers advance communication of a complaint the party intends in good faith to file. Truth and actual malice are the usual battleground in US defamation law, as our analysis of the dismissal of Trump's Wall Street Journal lawsuit explains.

Anti-SLAPP laws let defendants defeat speech-chilling suits early and recover costs. The 12 June opinion notes that the Second Circuit held in La Liberte v. Reid (2020) that California's special motion to strike cannot be used in federal court; Section 47.1 has no such procedure, which is why Lively could rely on it in New York. The Times sued Wayfarer in state court under New York's anti-SLAPP law and on 27 July 2026 Justice Gerald Lebovits awarded it $171,616.20 of the $181,622.70 sought, USA Today reported. For another media claim, see Trump's $10bn claim against the BBC.

California also limits secrecy. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1001, a settlement term preventing disclosure of factual information about a filed claim of sexual harassment, workplace harassment or discrimination, or retaliation is prohibited, and such terms agreed from 1 January 2019 are void; a clause keeping the amount confidential is still allowed. Whether California law applies depends on the facts: the Wayfarer parties argued it should not reach conduct in New York and New Jersey, Variety reported. California's Fair Employment and Housing Act also features in our report on the Tesla race discrimination trial.

For the dismissed claims, the position is final: dismissed with prejudice, with appeals waived. What remains are side disputes, such as any separate damages claim Lively may bring. Studios and talent facing similar disputes can find US sports and entertainment lawyers, US employment lawyers and US litigation specialists in our directory, and for publicity disputes see our piece on celebrity image rights.

Frequently asked questions

Did Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni settle?

Yes. They announced a settlement on 4 May 2026, and on 7 May Judge Lewis J. Liman so-ordered a joint stipulation dismissing Lively's case with prejudice. Both sides waived all appeals, but Lively kept her pending motion for fees and damages under California Civil Code Section 47.1.

Who won the Blake Lively Justin Baldoni settlement?

Neither side got what it first pleaded. Lively lost her harassment claims and, according to reports, received no settlement money. The Wayfarer parties lost their $400 million defamation suit, waived their appeal and were ordered to pay $407,451.75 in fees and costs.

How much did Blake Lively get in the settlement?

Variety reported that Lively received no compensation in the settlement, and no amount appears on the docket. Separately, the court awarded her $363,245.40 in fees and $44,206.35 in costs under Section 47.1, against the $8,035,040.88 she claimed.

Why did Blake Lively sue Justin Baldoni?

She alleged sexual harassment during production of "It Ends With Us" and a retaliatory campaign by Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios and their publicists. They denied the allegations. The harassment claims were dismissed in April 2026, and retaliation claims were heading to trial when the case settled.

What is California Civil Code Section 47.1?

A 2023 California law that makes statements about sexual assault, harassment or discrimination privileged if made without malice and with a reasonable basis. A defendant who defeats a defamation suit over such statements can claim fees, costs, treble damages and punitive damages.

Can Baldoni appeal the fee award?

No. In the 7 May 2026 stipulation, both sides irrevocably waived any appeal from the court's decision on the Section 47.1 motion, and any appeal of earlier orders, including the dismissal of the Wayfarer complaint.

Sources

1. Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, No. 24-cv-10049 (S.D.N.Y.), Notice of Settlement and Joint Stipulation, Dkt. 1434, 7 May 2026: courtlistener.com
2. Opinion and Order on the Section 47.1 motion, 12 June 2026, Dkt. 1440: courtlistener.com
3. Opinion and Order on attorneys' fees and costs, 26 August 2026, Dkt. 1452: courtlistener.com
4. California Code of Civil Procedure section 1001: california.public.law
5. ABC News, settlement announcement, 4 May 2026: abcnews.com
6. ABC News, Baldoni's lawyer publishes the settlement, June 2026: abcnews.com
7. Associated Press via PBS NewsHour, harassment claims dismissed, 2 April 2026: pbs.org
8. Variety, Lively made no money in the settlement, 5 May 2026: variety.com
9. Los Angeles Times, both sides claim victory, 7 May 2026: latimes.com
10. USA Today, Wayfarer ordered to pay The New York Times' legal fees, 28 July 2026: usatoday.com

About this article

This analysis was researched and written by The Corporate INTL Newsroom, which covers cross-border legal, regulatory and business developments for lawyers, professional advisers and financiers in over 150 jurisdictions. Dates, figures and quotations were checked against the filings in Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, California Code of Civil Procedure section 1001 and the reports listed above; terms not filed with the court are described only as reported. It is general information, not legal advice; anyone in a harassment, retaliation or defamation dispute should consult a qualified lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction. Last reviewed 9 November 2026. For more analysis, visit the Corporate INTL newsroom or subscribe to Corporate INTL.