A federal judge has dismissed Justin Baldoni’s $400 million defamation lawsuit against Blake Lively, citing legal protections for her harassment claims and leaving Baldoni’s case in ruins.
At a Glance
- A U.S. judge dismissed Justin Baldoni’s $400M defamation countersuit against Blake Lively
- Lively’s harassment complaint was deemed legally protected under California law
- A related $250M lawsuit against The New York Times was also dismissed
- Baldoni’s team may amend certain claims by June 23 ahead of a March 2026 trial
- Lively’s lawyers vowed to seek attorneys’ fees and punitive damages
Legal Immunity Ends Baldoni’s Case
In a stunning legal rebuke, U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman threw out Justin Baldoni’s blockbuster countersuit against Blake Lively. Baldoni had accused Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, their publicist Leslie Sloane, and The New York Times of defamation and extortion after Lively filed a harassment complaint with California’s Civil Rights Department. But Liman ruled that such filings are “legally privileged,” insulating them from defamation liability.
Simultaneously, Baldoni’s separate $250 million lawsuit against the Times—which had reported on Lively’s allegations—was also dismissed due to a lack of evidence that the newspaper knowingly published falsehoods.
Liman found no plausible proof that Reynolds or Sloane had conspired to defame Baldoni or that Lively acted maliciously in initiating her legal complaint.
Watch a report: Blake Lively’s Lawyers Claim ‘Total Victory’.
Retaliation or Reckoning?
The ruling marks a turning point in the high-profile legal feud that began when Lively accused Baldoni of harassment in a formal state filing. Her legal team successfully argued that the complaint was made in good faith and fell under California’s litigation privilege, designed to encourage victims to report misconduct without fear of retaliation.
Though the defamation and extortion claims have been erased, Judge Liman allowed Baldoni until June 23 to amend two narrower claims: breach of the implied covenant of good faith and tortious interference with contract. These remaining issues could still go to trial, currently scheduled for March 2026.
Legal Repercussions Loom
Lively’s attorneys have called the dismissal a “total victory” and signaled their intent to seek attorneys’ fees, treble damages, and punitive sanctions against Baldoni. They accused him of waging “abusive litigation” in response to a legitimate harassment complaint.
While Lively’s side celebrates, Baldoni’s team has yet to respond publicly to the twin dismissals, leaving open questions about whether they will revise their legal strategy or pursue further appeals.
With two massive defamation suits now dismantled, the case has shifted from a public spectacle to a deeper legal reckoning—one that could reshape how reputational disputes play out when celebrity power, media exposure, and civil rights law collide.
