It Ends with them - paying their attorneys
After 18 months of scorched-earth litigation, $60 million in combined legal fees, and enough leaked texts to fill a season of prestige TV, the most-watched legal drama in Hollywood since Depp v. Heard fizzled into a mutual non-apology and a joint press release. Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, co-stars, co-producers, and eventually co-defendants in each other’s legal crosshairs, settled their It Ends With Us lawsuit on May 4, 2026, just two weeks before trial. No money changed hands. No one admitted wrongdoing. Both camps immediately declared victory. And in what may be the most Blake Lively move possible, the settlement dropped the same night she attended her first Met Gala in four years (seated at Anna Wintour’s table!)
For the entertainment industry, the outcome was less a resolution than a collective exhale. The Lively-Baldoni saga had consumed Hollywood for the better part of a year and a half, pulling in Ryan Reynolds, Taylor Swift, author Colleen Hoover, the New York Times, and roughly 1,500 court docket entries along the way. It raised real questions about power, gender, workplace safety on set, and the weaponization of PR. And when the dust finally settled, the only clear winners were the ones billing by the hour. In this article, Hollywood Branded examines how the relationship between Lively and Baldoni unraveled so spectacularly, what the settlement actually delivered (and didn’t), how their careers - and Ryan Reynolds’ - took the hit, and what brands and entertainment marketers should take away from all of it.
How It All Started: On Set, Behind Closed Doors
The trouble traces back to the production of It Ends With Us, the 2024 adaptation of Colleen Hoover’s beloved domestic abuse novel. Lively starred as Lily Bloom, Baldoni directed and co-starred as Ryle Kincaid, and both served as producers. On paper? A prestige project with a massive built-in fanbase. Behind the scenes? A different story entirely.
According to Lively’s December 2024 civil complaint, Baldoni engaged in a pattern of sexual harassment during filming - making sexual comments about women on set, oversharing about his “previous pornography addiction,” and improvising physical and intimate scenes that hadn’t been choreographed, including footage that was later released publicly. Things allegedly got bad enough that the production was halted entirely, and Baldoni had to sign a 17-point behavioral agreement before cameras could roll again. Baldoni denied all of it, chalking the tension up to creative differences.
Anyway, the film opened in August 2024 and made $351 million worldwide on a $25 million budget. A genuine hit. The working relationship between its two leads, however, had already completely fallen apart.
Sony Pictures Releasing / courtesy Everett Collection
The Lawsuits Stack Up: From One Complaint to a Full-On Legal Pile-Up
In December 2024, the New York Times broke the story that Lively had filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department, alleging Baldoni had run a retaliatory smear campaign against her after she raised concerns about his behavior. Same day, Lively filed a full civil complaint in New York federal court. Also same day, Baldoni fired back with a $250 million defamation suit against the Times. Fast start.
January 2025 brought Baldoni’s nuclear option: a $400 million lawsuit against Lively, Ryan Reynolds, and their publicist Leslie Sloane, claiming Lively had fabricated or inflated the harassment allegations to seize creative control of the film and torch his reputation. He also launched a dedicated website - thelawsuitinfo.com - to publish his side of the story, a move that raised plenty of eyebrows in legal circles. Lively’s team wasted no time calling it a Depp-Heard-style PR campaign.
From there, things got genuinely wild. Lively sought a gag order (denied). Baldoni subpoenaed Taylor Swift (withdrawn after the court wasn’t thrilled about it). Ryan Reynolds’ texts with Sony and his WME agents got unsealed. Colleen Hoover testified in deposition that Lively had asked her to unfollow Baldoni on social media - which, awkward. Jenny Slate and Isabela Ferrer gave depositions. Baldoni’s former publicist Steph Jones filed her own separate lawsuit against him. At various points, both sides were moving for sanctions against each other’s attorneys.
By the time the case hit its peak, the docket had clocked roughly 1,500 entries. Multiple high-powered law firms billing $1,000+ an hour. Combined legal tab: north of $60 million, per Page Six and TMZ.
The Turning Point: How the Case Fell Apart Before It Even Got to Trial
The big shift came in April 2026, when Judge Lewis Liman dismissed 10 of the 13 claims in Lively’s lawsuit - including, most notably, all of her sexual harassment allegations. The reasoning was narrow: because Lively was classified as an independent contractor rather than an employee on the production, federal discrimination law technically didn’t apply. The judge was clear that this wasn’t a finding that the claims were baseless… but try explaining that nuance on social media. The optics were rough.
Baldoni’s side hadn’t fared much better, to be fair. His $400 million defamation suit against Lively and Reynolds? Dismissed in June 2025. His suit against the Times? Also dismissed. His case against Lively’s PR consultant Jed Wallace? Tossed in November 2025. The entire nuclear counterattack strategy had cost him a fortune and produced exactly zero courtroom wins.
As the trial date - originally March 2026, delayed to May 18 - approached, only three of Lively’s claims were still standing: retaliation, aiding and abetting retaliation, and breach of contract. And none of them were against Baldoni personally. The defendants were Wayfarer Studios, an LLC for the film, and a PR firm. Legal analysts were already speculating that one or two more might not survive to trial. The math had changed for both sides.
The Settlement: What Actually Happened on May 4, 2026
On May 4, 2026, both parties filed a notice of settlement in the Southern District of New York, ending the case fourteen days before jury selection was set to begin. The terms were deliberately vague. No money changed hands. No apologies. The joint statement said only that the filmmaking process “presented challenges” and that Lively’s concerns “deserved to be heard.”
Baldoni’s lead attorney Bryan Freedman told Extra his client was “ecstatic.” Lively’s team called it a “resounding victory.” Most of the rest of us called it a draw. A very, very expensive draw.
That said, it’s not entirely over. Lively explicitly carved out the right to pursue tens of millions in attorney’s fees from Baldoni under California’s anti-SLAPP law, which lets plaintiffs recover costs when they’ve been targeted with lawsuits designed to silence them. Her attorneys are actively pursuing that. Baldoni may also still face personal liability for abusing the legal system - that door is still open. And the New York Times is separately seeking around $150,000 in legal fees from Baldoni for its own dismissed case. More billables incoming.
Hours after the settlement was announced, Lively showed up at the Met Gala – her first appearance in four years, seated at Anna Wintour’s table. Reynolds posted a couple’s selfie on Instagram. The message from Team Lively was pretty clear: we’re back.
Photo Credit: Getty Images
The Scoreboard: What Each Side Actually Gained (and Lost)
For Blake Lively:
Zero dollars received. Zero sexual harassment claims adjudicated. An estimated 10 million combined followers lost between her and Reynolds during the litigation period. Her attorneys had filed a claims valuation putting potential damages at $161 million - $50+ million in lost acting and producing opportunities, nearly $71 million in impact to her brands (Blake Brown, Betty Buzz/Betty Booze), and $34 million in reputational damage from an estimated 65 million negative social media impressions. None of that was recovered.
What she did get: she avoided a trial that legal experts were calling a minefield, especially for her outside the courtroom. She preserved the possibility of recovering legal fees. And she got to make her comeback announcement at the Met Gala, which, honestly, is a pretty Lively way to do it.
For Ryan Reynolds:
Reynolds got pulled into this whether he wanted to be or not. He was named in Baldoni’s countersuit (later dismissed) and his texts to Sony execs and WME agents were among the documents unsealed. Industry sources say the lawsuit “damaged her career and his, badly.” Per NewsNation, Reynolds had reportedly been pushing for a settlement for over a year, well aware of what the ongoing litigation was costing both of them professionally. He’d largely stepped back from his own acting career during this period. The Instagram selfie on settlement night was about as public as he’d been in months.
For Justin Baldoni:
Every lawsuit he filed was dismissed - the $400 million suit against Lively and Reynolds, the $250 million suit against the Times, the case against Lively’s PR consultant. His public counteroffensive (the website, the media blitz, the Taylor Swift subpoena, which Swift’s rep dismissed as him “just using her name for attention”) largely backfired. He was dropped by his talent agency and had an award rescinded within days of Lively’s initial filing.
On the other side of the ledger: he eliminated his personal defamation exposure when those claims were dismissed. The joint settlement statement, which conceded that Lively’s concerns “deserved to be heard,” was a meaningful rhetorical walk-back after 18 months of insisting she made everything up, but it came with no financial penalty. And his production company Wayfarer Studios, backed by billionaire Steve Sarowitz, gives him a path to self-finance future projects if studios stay cold.
Hollywood’s Verdict: Nobody Wants to Work With Either of Them
The courtroom drama may be over, but Hollywood’s jury is still out. A prominent studio executive put it bluntly in anonymous industry surveys: “They’re in jail. Both of them.” Agents, producers, and casting directors largely echoed the same thing — the talent isn’t in question, but the appetite to work with either of them has taken a serious hit.
Casting director Matthew Barry (The Notebook, Rush Hour) drew the Depp-Heard parallel pretty directly: “Johnny Depp came back. You don’t ever hear Amber’s name.” Another agent flagged the gender gap in how Hollywood processes these situations — men tend to find their way back faster, while women end up carrying the “difficult” label indefinitely. And “difficult” is often all it takes to cool off a job offer.
For Lively, the industry chill had already set in well before the settlement. It was widely reported that agents and executives were steering clear, not wanting to risk attaching themselves to a project that might end up in litigation. A settlement doesn’t erase that reputation overnight.
There’s also a harder question here that the settlement leaves completely unanswered: Lively’s sexual harassment allegations - the whole reason this started - were dismissed on a technicality about her employment classification, not because a court found them without merit. That’s a meaningful distinction. And for the broader conversation about set safety and workplace accountability in Hollywood, the case ended without ever actually being adjudicated.
The Internet Had Its Own Trial, and Nobody Won That Either
Maybe the most bizarre part of this whole saga wasn’t in the courtroom - it was on social media. Lively went into this expecting #MeToo solidarity. What she got instead was memes, parody accounts, and a very effective counter-narrative that she’d orchestrated the whole thing for personal gain.
Baldoni’s website, the unsealed texts (especially Reynolds’ Sony communications), and the Colleen Hoover unfollowing story all fed into a public perception that Team Lively had run a calculated behind-the-scenes pressure campaign. When Lively made the TIME 100 list and showed up to the gala in April 2026, she lost over 86,000 Instagram followers in a single day. Reynolds shed more than 38,000 in the same window.
For anyone in the brand and marketing world, this is the part worth paying close attention to. Public opinion in a legal dispute doesn’t follow the same logic as a court ruling. It follows narrative momentum. Baldoni’s counter-narrative - even while his legal arguments were getting dismissed one by one - landed hard enough culturally to meaningfully damage Lively’s standing. The website was a legal dud. As a perception tool? It worked.
What This Means for the Industry - and for Brands
From a brand partnership and entertainment marketing standpoint, the Lively-Baldoni case is a pretty stark reminder of how fast a talent’s value proposition can unravel, and how unpredictable that unraveling can be. Lively came into 2025 with a thriving lifestyle brand portfolio, a strong endorsement roster, and one of the biggest celebrity social audiences in the country. She’s exiting 2026 with the litigation behind her but a noticeably smaller commercial footprint and a real PR rebuild ahead.
For brands doing talent deals, celebrity integrations, influencer partnerships, or ambassador programs, this case is a good reality check that talent risk is about more than creative fit and scheduling. Reputational exposure from on-set disputes, litigation, and social media pile-ons can hit fast and cost a lot. The brands that were tied to Lively’s image during the worst of this had no way to see it coming and no real way to control it once it started.
And it raises the bigger question: what does winning even look like here? Lively spent an estimated $30 million in legal fees, got nothing in settlement, lost millions of followers, and saw her husband’s career take collateral damage, all while the harassment claims she came forward with were never adjudicated. Baldoni’s company survived, but his industry relationships, professional reputation, and ability to attract studio partners are all genuinely uncertain. Nobody came out clean.
The Bottom Line
Nobody settled because justice was served. They settled because the legal bills were outpacing any realistic recovery, the witness stand posed real risk for both sides, and most people who know this space well agreed that a full trial would have left both parties in worse shape than they started. The only guaranteed winners were the attorneys.
That $60 million in combined fees - as one attorney noted - could have financed two additional film sequels. Instead, it bought 18 months of headlines, memes, a Taylor Swift subpoena, and a joint statement that satisfied absolutely no one.
It Ends With Us was a story about cycles of harm that go unaddressed until they can’t be ignored anymore. In a strange way, the litigation that followed did the same thing: it surfaced real questions about power, gender, and accountability on Hollywood sets - and then closed without answering any of them. Both Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni now have to rebuild in an industry that watched every moment play out in real time. The verdict from Hollywood? Still pending.
Eager To Learn More?
The Lively–Baldoni case is a lot of things - a Hollywood cautionary tale, a PR masterclass in what not to do, and a very expensive reminder that no talent deal is without risk. At Hollywood Branded, we work with brands every day to navigate exactly these kinds of decisions: who to partner with, how to protect yourself when things get messy, and how to think strategically about celebrity and entertainment marketing before you're scrambling in crisis mode. Want to go deeper? Head to blog.hollywoodbranded.com for more insights on brand partnerships, celebrity integrations, and what's really happening behind the scenes in Hollywood.
- 3 Examples of Celebrity Partnerships Gone Wrong
- How to Manage Celebrity Partnerships Gone Wrong
- Celebrity Endorsements: Safeguarding Your Brand's Reputation Against Misdeeds
- Beyond the Spotlight: The New Dynamics of Celebrity Branding
- When Celebrity Endorsements Go Wrong
Want to stay in the know with all things pop culture? Look no further than our Hot in Hollywood newsletter! Each week, we compile a list of the most talked-about moments in the entertainment industry, all for you to enjoy!
