A federal judge has dismissed 10 of 13 claims in Blake Lively’s lawsuit against Justin Baldoni, a sweeping ruling that invalidates her core harassment allegations and narrows the case to retaliation claims tied to a separate contract. The decision, which found the central Actor Loanout Agreement was never validly formed, sets the stage for a May trial focused solely on whether Baldoni retaliated against Lively for raising on-set concerns.
The legal war between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni over the film It Ends With Us has reached a pivotal moment, with a federal judge delivering a devastating blow to Lively’s case. In a ruling exceeding 150 pages, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman dismissed 10 of her 13 claims, including all harassment, defamation, and conspiracy allegations that fueled more than a year of public acrimony. Only three claims—breach of contract, retaliation, and aiding and abetting retaliation—will proceed to trial, fundamentally reshaping the dispute that has captivated Hollywood and fans alike Bored Panda.
The ruling hinges on technical legal deficiencies that undercut Lively’s entire harassment theory. Judge Liman determined she could not pursue federal harassment claims because she was classified as an independent contractor, not an employee, and could not bring state claims because filming occurred in New Jersey, not California. More critically, the judge rejected the foundation of her lawsuit: the Actor Loanout Agreement (ALA), which Lively argued governed on-set conduct. Liman declared the ALA “not and has never been a validly formed and binding contract,” noting it was never fully executed or signed by both parties. His reasoning was blunt: “Unless both parties are bound, neither party is bound,” and the failure to agree on key provisions proved no contract existed Bored Panda.
With the ALA discarded, the surviving claims rely entirely on a separate document: the Contract Rider Agreement (CRA), signed in January 2024. This agreement included specific language prohibiting retaliation against Lively for raising concerns about on-set conduct. Judge Liman cited the clause stating there should be “no retaliation of any kind against Artist for raising concerns,” concluding these allegations “stand on firmer ground.” The case now centers on whether Baldoni’s actions—including alleged efforts to damage Lively’s reputation through publicists—constituted retaliation under this narrower contractual framework Bored Panda.
The collapse of Lively’s harassment claims validates arguments long advanced by Baldoni’s legal team, who maintained her allegations were exaggerated and strategically motivated to gain control of the film’s narrative. The conflict, which erupted publicly in 2024, has already inflicted severe reputational damage on both parties and cast a shadow over the film’s legacy. It Ends With Us grossed $350 million worldwide, becoming one of 2024’s biggest hits, but Sony Pictures executive Tom Rothman famously described the situation as “a f**king disaster” in an internal email, lamenting that “the mess is the story now and will define the film.”
The feud also entangled high-profile figures like Taylor Swift, whose private messages were revealed in court filings. In fall 2024, Swift texted about Baldoni, “I think this b**ch knows something is coming because he’s gotten out his tiny violin.” Lively, in messages to Swift, referred to Baldoni as a “clown” and a “doofus director,” underscoring the personal animosity that has permeated the legal battle. Despite a mediation session in February, the parties failed to settle, and the trial is now scheduled for May 18 in New York City.
Online, fans of both actors have fiercely debated the ruling. Supporters of Baldoni argue Lively attempted to “ruin his life” with unsubstantiated claims, while Lively’s backers maintain the retaliation issues remain serious. The judge’s decision to allow those claims to proceed ensures the legal drama will continue, but in a dramatically constrained form. What began as a sweeping #MeToo-era harassment lawsuit has been reduced to a contract dispute over whether one star retaliated against the other—a far cry from the explosive allegations that first dominated headlines.
For more breaking entertainment analysis and definitive takes on the biggest stories, trust onlytrustedinfo.com to deliver the fastest, most authoritative coverage.
