Judge orders – A federal judge ruled Friday, June 12, that Justin Baldoni must pay Blake Lively’s attorneys’ fees and costs tied to his 2025 defamation lawsuit, while denying her request for damages under California’s Section 47.1.
By the time the hearing ended, it was clear the fight wasn’t about a verdict anymore—it was about what the law would force Justin Baldoni to pay back.
On Friday. June 12. Judge Lewis Liman issued a ruling in federal court ordering Baldoni. 42. to cover Blake Lively’s legal costs and fees connected to his 2025 defamation lawsuit. The judge denied Lively’s request for damages. The settlement of the parties’ broader dispute had already been reached after almost a year-and-a-half of litigation. but this order landed with a sharper edge: attorneys’ fees were still on the table. and the question of malice still mattered.
Lively. 38. had returned to court earlier this month invoking a new California law. Section 47.1. which is designed to protect people who file harassment complaints from retaliatory defamation suits. Her move was tied to a long-running clash that began when Baldoni and his production company. Wayfarer Studios. pursued a $400 million legal action against Lively. her husband. Ryan Reynolds. and The New York Times. A judge dismissed that case in November.
In court, Lively sought compensatory damages under the statute, including attorneys’ costs and fees incurred to defend herself. She also asked for punitive damages and treble damages—an added penalty that would triple the amount of any actual damages awarded.
Baldoni’s side pushed back hard. In a letter to Liman, Baldoni’s attorney Ellyn S. Garofalo wrote that “there is no authority to support the notion” that the California statute backing Lively’s claims “can be used to do an end run around a plaintiff or defendant’s right to a jury trial.” Garofalo added that “since Lively has dismissed her claims. and relinquished her right to appeal. ” she isn’t entitled to damages.
Liman ruled in Lively’s favor on the fees question, agreeing with both sides in part. The judge said there was “no evidence of malice” in Lively’s statements about Baldoni and Wayfarer as they alleged. Because of that finding, Lively was entitled to attorneys’ costs. But the judge denied the damages request.
Liman explained that the California law “does not create an end run around the entire set of carefully crafted federal procedural rules designed to protect the rights of the parties,” and that denied Lively’s bid for damages.
Lively still has the option to pursue damages under the California law in a separate lawsuit or counterclaim, including in federal court. The exact amount of attorneys’ costs and fees owed has not yet been revealed.
Lively’s attorneys, Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb, said in a statement that the ruling “makes it clear that Ms. Lively brought her claims in good faith. that there was no evidence she acted with malice. and that she is the prevailing defendant under Section 47.1.” They added that the court is awarding attorneys’ fees and costs and described how a “prevailing defendant under Section 47.1 may seek damages using different procedural mechanisms.”.
They also said the parties’ settlement agreement preserves Lively’s rights to pursue those damages. “Ms. Lively is gratified that her lawsuit shows how Section 47.1 and laws like it create a path for survivors to hold accountable those who weaponize online attacks and retaliatory lawsuits to intimidate and silence survivors.” A representative for Baldoni was reached for comment.
The legal battle started months earlier, with Lively suing Baldoni and Wayfarer in December 2024. She alleged sexual harassment and retaliation. claiming Baldoni sexually harassed her on the set of the domestic violence drama “It Ends with Us” and helped orchestrate a smear campaign against her. Baldoni responded in January 2025 with a countersuit alleging civil extortion, defamation, and false light. The judge ultimately dismissed the suit entirely in favor of the “Gossip Girl” alum.
Even after that, the courtroom fights continued. Over the next year, the judge dismissed all but three of Lively’s 16 causes of action on April 2. Then, on May 4—just days before they were set to go to trial—Baldoni and Lively reached a settlement.
One reason the June 12 decision still landed so sharply is that it narrowed the dispute down to a precise legal question: fees versus damages. Liman’s finding of no evidence of malice supported the fee award. while his view of how Section 47.1 fits—or doesn’t fit—inside federal procedural rules kept Lively from collecting the damages she sought in that round.
The ruling also leaves the door open for the next chapter. Lively can still pursue damages under Section 47.1 through an independent lawsuit or counterclaim, with the fight shifting from one court decision to the mechanics of what comes next.
Blake Lively Justin Baldoni Lewis Liman Section 47.1 defamation lawsuit attorneys’ fees Wayfarer Studios legal settlement It Ends with Us Ryan Reynolds
So basically he has to pay her lawyers? Wild.
Wait I’m confused—did she already settle or not? Like they said broader dispute settled but now it’s still money over fees, right?
I don’t know the whole case but if it’s “defamation” then why deny damages? That part feels backwards. Also $400 million sounds like a publicity stunt more than anything.
California Section 47.1 sounds made up honestly. Like they’re protecting harassment complaints but it turns into more lawsuits anyway. And the whole “malice still mattered” thing—so she wins because he had the wrong vibe in court? I’m just saying, judges really go off vibes sometimes.