In footage from the set of “It Ends With Us,” Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively engage in a polite, even friendly, discussion about how to show their characters falling in love. Should they kiss? Or is it more romantic for them to talk?
He smiles. She laughs. However, they began to despise each other.
She thought Baldoni – the co-star, director and studio head – was overstepping her boundaries; he felt she couldn’t take direction. This simple interaction from May 2023 – which might, under other circumstances, have been called “creative differences” – has over the past month escalated into an all-out legal war, leading to a civil rights lawsuit and four prosecutions (so far).
In this ongoing controversy, Baldoni and Lively are most concerned about their public reputations. But the longer this goes on, the more everyone may need a clear legal victory for vindication.
“These are mostly public relations campaigns disguised as lawsuits,” says Gregory Doll, a trial lawyer who has handled high-profile entertainment cases. “But there is some bite to prosecution.”
The lawsuits set out a series of accusations and counter-accusations. In summary, Lively accuses Baldoni of harassment and retaliation, and Baldoni accuses her of defamation.
Baldoni sued Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds and their publicist, Leslie Sloane. In another suit, he also went after the New York Times, claiming it defamed him by taking the text messages out of context and repeating Lively’s story. (Baldoni’s former publicist, Steph Jones, also sued him.)
Regardless of the merits of the Times’ lawsuit, the newspaper has a procedural mechanism to block it at least for a few years. The Times may file a strike petition under California’s anti-SLAPP law, arguing that Baldoni is attempting to silence speech protected by the First Amendment. Even if a judge rules against the newspaper, it can still appeal immediately, which would stall the case for some time.
In the other defamation suit, Lively and the others are accused of spreading a false story to the New York Times. Baldoni’s team filed the suit in federal court in New York — even though California law governs his contract — meaning Lively and the other defendants won’t be able to rely on California’s anti-SLAPP law.
They may seek to dismiss the 179-page complaint, in part on the grounds that it reads like an extended counter-narrative, rather than articulating the alleged defamation point by point.
“They must indicate which statements they believe to be false, which establishes that they are statements of fact and not opinions, and show that they are not subject to privilege,” explains Caitlin Kovacs, an attorney at Benesch who works on defamation cases.
Essentially, she says, Baldoni seems to be arguing that Lively twisted her words or took things out of context — not that she made them up out of thin air.
“It seems like there are some basic allegations that he’s not really refuting,” Kovacs says. “She says he called her sexy. He admits it. She says he told her she smelled good. He admitted to doing it. These will be difficult statements to overturn and use as the basis for a defamation claim.
In either case, Baldoni’s team would also have to find a way to circumvent the privileges that protect the right of litigants to sue and the right of the media to cover trials. The Times could simply highlight Lively’s civil rights complaint and argue that it had every right to inform its readers about a legal controversy.
“It is unlikely that Lively or anyone who is a defendant in these cases can be held accountable for anything they file in a court filing,” Kovacs said.
In contrast, Lively’s suit against Baldoni does not suffer from obvious procedural obstacles. Allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation require factual analysis, meaning the suit could easily survive summary judgment or go all the way to trial.
Regarding the harassment claim, a jury is expected to find that Baldoni and producer Jamey Heath engaged in “serious or pervasive” misconduct sufficient to create a hostile work environment.
The highlight of Lively’s lawsuit, however, is the allegations of retaliation. Her lawyers were able to obtain excellent evidence, in the form of text messages sent by Baldoni’s publicists, in which they spoke of trying to “destroy” or “bury” her. Lively alleges that Baldoni’s team was smearing her as revenge for speaking out about the harassment.
To prove this, Lively would not have to demonstrate that her harassment claim was valid. But she would have to demonstrate that she suffered an “adverse employment action,” usually something like a demotion or termination, as a result of speaking out.
“It’s going to be difficult to prove,” says attorney Camron Dowlatshahi, who specializes in employment disputes.
Dowlatshahi notes that the alleged smear campaign took place after Lively’s employment effectively ended. He also claims it could be difficult to prove damages, such as the loss of a film role, due to negative messages or articles allegedly spread by Baldoni’s publicity team.
Baldoni also sued Lively on grounds other than defamation. In a contract interference complaint, he alleges that she and Reynolds pressured his agency, WME, to drop him — which WME denies. It also alleges that Lively took creative control of “It Ends With Us” — although he did not sue Sony, which would have granted Lively the power to make her own version.
Baldoni’s suit also made an allegation of “civil extortion,” arguing that she used false allegations and threats to gain leverage over him.
In other words, lawyers say the litigation is strong enough to last for some time. The process could also generate its own momentum as animosity grows, potentially leading to a repeat of the defamation trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.
Dowlatshahi describes the situation as “a pure public relations stunt from every angle” but believes the lawyers may have an obligation to try the case in the court of public opinion.
“My role is to serve my client as best as possible,” he says. “If my client is determined to preserve his reputation and damage the other person’s reputation, then that’s what I’m going to do.”
However, they might eventually become exhausted enough to consider an amicable resolution.
“I think at some point both sides will realize that there will be public fatigue with this back and forth,” he says. “Reputation-wise, they don’t benefit in any way. »
Doll agrees: “Once the dust settles, calmer heads will prevail.” »
