Blake Lively Loses Bid for Damages in 'It Ends With Us' Settlement After Legal Gamble Fails
The legal battle stemming from allegations surrounding the production of It Ends With Us has reached a significant turning point after a court rejected Blake Lively’s attempt to recover damages, leaving legal fees as the only financial award available to her.
Blake Lively’s final bid for damages in the ‘It Ends With Us’ legal dispute was rejected, though she was awarded legal fees.
Gotham/GC Images
The dispute followed a last-minute settlement that prevented a widely anticipated trial tied to allegations of sexual harassment on the film’s set. After the agreement was reached, both parties sought to shape public perception of the outcome.
Attorneys representing Justin Baldoni highlighted the fact that the settlement did not include any monetary payment to Lively. The actress had launched the legal fight in 2024, alleging that Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer, coordinated efforts to damage her reputation after she raised concerns about misconduct during production.
Meanwhile, Lively’s legal team pointed to language in the joint settlement statement in which Baldoni acknowledged that her claims “deserved to be heard.” Her attorneys also placed considerable emphasis on a remaining claim under a California law designed to protect sexual-harassment complainants from retaliatory defamation actions.
Michael Gottlieb, Lively’s lead attorney, described preserving that claim as a “core issue” following the settlement. The strategy centered on the expectation that Lively could still obtain damages and recover legal costs through that legal avenue, even after resolving the broader dispute.
That effort ultimately fell short. On Friday, the court ordered Baldoni to cover Lively’s legal fees but denied her request for damages, ending what was effectively her final opportunity to secure a financial recovery in the case.
Baldoni’s attorneys quickly framed the decision as a clear victory.
“All Blake Lively needed to do was to say, ‘No, I’m not settling. Let’s go to the trial and the jury of our peers, and let’s see what we can get,'” Bryan Freedman said on The Megyn Kelly Show while discussing the settlement agreement. “If it was so good, why do you settle a case exchanging no money? It doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t pass the smell test.”
When the settlement was first announced, Freedman downplayed the importance of Lively’s remaining claim, describing it as “procedural.”
“It’s pretty standard,” Freedman added in an interview with Entertainment Tonight. “But when you want to parade around and call a loss a victory, this is your attempt to do so.”
Following Friday’s ruling, Lively’s spokesperson also referred to the outcome as a “procedural” decision.
At the center of the dispute was an unusual interpretation of a California statute that has seen limited testing in federal courts. The court concluded that the law could not be used to bypass established federal procedural protections.
“That law,” the court explained, “does not create an end run around the entire set of carefully crafted federal procedural rules designed to protect the rights of the parties.”
“It instead establishes a narrow exception to the usual litigation process for a specific and limited kind of relief,” wrote U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman. “Compensatory and punitive damages do not fall within that exception.”
According to the approach pursued by Gottlieb, Lively chose to give up opportunities to continue pursuing her three remaining legal claims, which no longer included the central sexual-harassment allegation because it had already been dismissed. Instead, her legal strategy focused on the California statute intended to prevent defamation lawsuits from being used as a retaliatory weapon.
The result was mixed. While Lively secured legal fees, she failed to obtain damages.
“He didn’t get the result that they hoped to get in this case,” Freedman said of Gottlieb, estimating that the litigation cost Lively between $30 million and $60 million. “When you bring a case and you hope to prevail on that case, if you have the evidence to show that you’re right, you go to trial, and so it was really easy for us to end up in a trial.”
Both sides have consistently suggested that the litigation was never solely about money. Lively’s position focused on accountability and exposing what she characterized as a coordinated effort to damage her reputation. Baldoni’s side, meanwhile, viewed the dispute as a matter of vindication.
Public opinion became another battleground throughout the case. While there may never be a definitive answer regarding who prevailed in the public arena, perceptions of Lively appeared to shift as the legal fight intensified.
“The reaction to Ms. Lively bringing this lawsuit was positive,” Gottlieb said on The Town podcast last month. “That began to shift after the Wayfarer parties filed a defamation lawsuit and went on a press tour branding her a liar. That’s why we focused on holding them accountable for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.”
The only unresolved issue remaining before the court concerns the amount Baldoni will be required to pay in legal fees. Although the current dispute is nearing its conclusion, Lively still retains the option of pursuing a separate lawsuit seeking damages related to the allegedly retaliatory defamation claim. Freedman, however, believes it is now “time to move on.”
