Blake Lively celebrated a partial legal victory while saying she will continue to pursue remaining claims of retaliation against Justin Baldoni and associated parties
The legal battle between Blake Lively and co-star Justin Baldoni has shifted after a federal judge pared down the actress’s complaint. In a written opinion, Judge Lewis Liman dismissed multiple allegations from Lively’s original filing but left intact three claims — including retaliation — that will proceed to trial. The court directed the parties toward settlement talks, yet the matter remains on a collision course with a jury when the case moves forward on May 18.
In response to the ruling, Lively issued a direct statement on social media emphasizing her intent to continue. She framed the remaining counts as the core of her case and underscored a broader concern about online attacks and professional reprisals. The actress thanked the judge for the decision that narrowed the litigation while reiterating that she would not abandon efforts to expose what she describes as systems that harm and silence victims.
Judge Liman’s opinion concluded that several of Lively’s claims could not stand as pleaded. A central legal determination was that Lively functioned as an independent contractor, a status that affects the applicability of certain employment statutes. Because she was deemed not to be an employee, the judge found she could not pursue some claims under Title VII and related employment protections. The court also examined geographic and jurisdictional links, noting that some alleged conduct occurred outside the state lawbases cited by the plaintiff, which undercut particular state-law harassment counts.
The ruling pared down the complaint substantially: several counts were dismissed, while three — breach of contract, retaliation, and aiding and abetting in retaliation — remained. The judge acknowledged that not everything Lively complained about was actionable, but concluded that certain actions by defendants at least arguably crossed legal boundaries and therefore warranted jury review.
The complaint described on-set interactions and a subsequent campaign of public attacks that Lively says damaged her reputation. Among the alleged incidents were described gestures and improvised behavior while filming, which the judge considered against the backdrop of actors working within scenes. Liman observed that conduct occurring in the course of filming can be different from the same behavior in a conventional workplace, and that creative work often permits improvisation — a factor the court weighed in dismissing several harassment claims.
In analyzing the behavior Lively described, the court noted that some acts were directed at a character rather than solely at the performer, and that isolated on-set actions may fall within the realm of performance. The opinion cited specific examples alleged by the plaintiff — including gestures and statements made during takes — and explained why those facts, standing alone, did not automatically translate into an actionable hostile work environment under the statutes invoked. That legal nuance played a substantial role in eliminating many of the claims before trial.
What remains central to Lively’s case is an allegation that, in the lead-up to and after the film’s release, a coordinated effort sought to undermine her professionally through online narratives and targeted messaging. Lively’s lawyers have characterized that activity as an orchestrated form of digital retaliation, pointing to communications and media outreach they say support the claim. Defendants have denied orchestrating any artificial online attack, arguing the public reaction was organic. The judge allowed parts of the retaliation theory to survive, recognizing that certain crisis management tactics could, in some instances, cross from reputation defense into wrongful conduct.
The court encouraged settlement, but defense counsel reported that efforts to resolve the dispute were unsuccessful. Previously, Baldoni and his studio, Wayfarer Studios, had filed counterclaims against Lively and her husband; those counterclaims were dismissed earlier. With the remaining counts set for jury consideration, both sides are preparing for trial, and Lively has indicated she intends to testify and to press the issue of online harm and professional reprisal.
Preparations now turn to jury selection and presentation of evidence when the case reaches the courtroom on May 18. Expect attorneys to focus on witness testimony, documentary records including messages and media outreach, and expert analysis about reputation management and digital campaigns. The narrowing of the case means the trial will center on whether actions by Baldoni, his associates, or representatives crossed a line into unlawful retaliation and whether contract-related obligations were breached.
For her part, Lively has used public statements to frame the dispute as part of a larger fight against victim-shaming and online attacks. She closed her message with a firm note that she would continue pursuing accountability. In short, while many of the initial allegations were dismissed, the litigation remains alive on pivotal claims that will be decided before a jury.