Storia
1 lug 2026
Judge Rules on Legal Fees in Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni Dispute
In the ongoing legal battle between actors Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, a judge has ruled that Lively is entitled to recover some attorney and litigation fees. However, the judge denied Lively's request for punitive damages and other forms of relief in the dispute related to their film 'It Ends With Us'.
A judge’s split ruling in the Blake Lively–Justin Baldoni legal fight has become less about money than about which narrative wins: a technical fee award for Lively versus a broader defeat on her underlying claims.
Liberal-leaning coverage emphasizes the legal protection the decision extends to people who bring harassment complaints. The Guardian stresses that Judge Lewis J Liman cited “a California law designed to protect survivors of sexual harassment and discrimination from retaliatory lawsuits meant to intimidate and silence victims,” allowing Lively to recover fees for defending against Baldoni’s countersuit, even though the facts of her initial claims were not fully litigated.1 It notes that Baldoni and his company “provided little evidence” that Lively acted with malice, the only route that could have blocked her fee recovery.1
Conservative outlets, by contrast, frame the same ruling as a stinging loss for Lively. Fox News highlights Baldoni attorney Bryan Freedman’s claim that Lively “failed” in her attempt to sue for sexual harassment after “10 of her 13 claims” were dismissed and she “chose to settle and received nothing.”2 His statement insists there was “no sexual harassment,” “no retaliation,” and “no smear campaign,” portraying the limited fee award as a narrow procedural consequence rather than a moral or factual vindication.2
A second conservative report strikes a more neutral balance, focusing on the mechanics: Lively “can recover some legal costs … but not punitive damages and other relief she sought,” underscoring that the court rejected her bid for expanded damages under the same California statute.3
Across the spectrum, all sides agree on the core facts: Lively recovers some fees, gets no damages, and most substantive claims are off the table. The interpretive split lies in what that means—either a modest but meaningful reinforcement of anti-retaliation protections, or a warning that expansive harassment lawsuits can collapse, leaving only a partial reimbursement of the legal bill.
1. The Guardian – "Blake Lively awarded legal fees but no damages in Justin Baldoni dispute": Blake Lively can recover some legal costs and the judge relied on a California law meant to protect survivors from retaliatory suits, while denying punitive damages and other relief. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2026/jun/12/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-lawsuit-ruling
2. Fox News – "Justin Baldoni attorney rips Blake Lively after judge awards limited attorney fees": Baldoni’s lawyer said Lively “failed,” noting most of her claims were dismissed, she settled for no payout, and was awarded only limited attorney fees. https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/justin-baldoni-attorney-rips-blake-lively-after-judge-awards-limited-attorney-fees
3. The Washington Times – "Judge awards Blake Lively legal fees but no more damages in dispute over 'It Ends With Us' film": The judge allowed Lively to recover some legal fees while denying punitive damages and additional relief she sought. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/jun/13/justin-baldoni-pay-legal-fees-blake-lively-dispute-ends-us-film/