Actress Blake Lively sued director Justin Baldoni in December 2024 over his conduct during and after filming "It Ends With Us." Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer, countersued Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds for $400 million, alleging defamation and extortion. A judge threw out Baldoni and Wayfarer's countersuit in June 2025. Then, in April 2026, the judge dismissed most of Lively's own claims too, including her harassment claims. The two sides settled the rest without a trial in May, on undisclosed terms. Lively then asked the court to make Baldoni and Wayfarer pay roughly $8 million of her legal fees under a California law shielding harassment accusers from retaliatory lawsuits. On August 26, 2026, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman awarded her about $407,000 — roughly 5% of what she asked for.

Lively's team says this first-ever award proves the lawsuit against her was retaliation.

Her lawyers call this a historic win. Hudson and Gottlieb called it "the first-ever award of fees and costs under this California law," and said it "demonstrates that there are real consequences of bringing retaliatory lawsuits."

Her lawyers say two courts already found the countersuit was retaliatory. Lively's lawyers said Baldoni and Wayfarer "lost their meritless retaliatory $400 million lawsuit, which two different courts held was designed to stifle public criticism and silence Blake Lively and others."

Lively's team says money was never the point. They said the case "was never about money — it was about accountability. She lifted the curtain for other victims, and set the precedent for others to come forward and expose similar conduct."

2. Baldoni's Attorney (Bryan Freedman)

Freedman says the 95% cut proves Lively's demand was excessive, and that the law itself got misused.

Freedman says the size of the cut speaks for itself. He said Judge Liman "clearly considered the 'outrageous and unreasonable' $8 million plus demand and, in rejecting it, awarded only 5 percent of the amount sought in legal fees and costs."

Judge Liman's own reasoning backs him up on the hours billed. Liman wrote that Lively's lawyers' rates "were not unreasonable" but that "the number of hours for which Lively seeks reimbursement is unreasonable." He also cut fee requests tied to media relations and some travel.

Freedman calls the law flawed, not something to celebrate. He called Section 47.1 "not a perfect law" that "was applied in ways it was never intended for." He also noted that Baldoni's side waived its right to appeal the ruling as part of the settlement.

Both camps are reading too much into a fee cut that happens in ordinary litigation all the time.

Some legal commentators say the "historic precedent" framing oversells it. One attorney quoted in coverage of the case called that framing "an oversimplification," saying "the legal issues are far more complicated than that."

Courts slash fee requests like this all the time. Another attorney noted that "fee petitions are negotiated and reduced all the time." Large cuts like this are standard practice — they don't say who was right in the underlying dispute.

Where This Lands

Lively's team says a first-of-its-kind fee award under Section 47.1 proves Baldoni and Wayfarer's countersuit was retaliation, full stop. Freedman says the judge's steep cut makes his point for him, and that the law itself needs fixing. Legal analysts watching the case say both sides are reading too much into what is, procedurally, just an ordinary fee reduction.

Sources