PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchThe website launched on February 1, 2025, not 2026. Justin Baldoni’s legal team created Lawsuit Info to publish an amended complaint, a 168-page timeline, and supporting communications and footage during the early public phase of the It Ends With Us legal battle. Those materials represented Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios’ allegations—not neutral proof or judicial findings.
Justin Baldoni’s team launched the Lawsuit Info website on February 1, 2025—not in 2026. Created during the early public phase of the legal dispute surrounding It Ends With Us, the site gave readers direct access to Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios’ amended complaint, a 168-page timeline, and other materials their lawyers said supported their account.
But “evidence” needs careful qualification. The site was a public-facing defense and litigation-advocacy repository, not an independent archive or a court finding. Its complaint, timeline, selected correspondence, and released footage presented one side’s allegations and interpretation. The materials did not, by themselves, establish that either party’s account was true. The central litigation was later settled, and the latest dispute concerned attorneys’ fees rather than an upcoming trial.
At a glance
- Launch date: February 1, 2025.
- Created by: Justin Baldoni’s legal team during the dispute over the production and promotion of It Ends With Us.
- Main documents: An amended complaint filed in the Southern District of New York and a 168-page timeline of relevant events.
- Purpose: To distribute the defense team’s documents and counter Blake Lively’s public and legal allegations.
- Legal status as of August 12, 2026: The merits litigation had been settled without a trial. A later ruling granted attorneys’ fees and costs in principle but did not establish a final dollar amount in the latest sources reviewed.
What was the Lawsuit Info website?
The website, thelawsuitinfo.com, identifies itself as “Lawsuit Info.” Its principal visible links are an “Amended Complaint” and a “Timeline of Relevant Events.” Contemporaneous reports described the complaint as 224 pages and the timeline as 168 pages.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
The amended complaint was filed on January 31, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, case 1:24-cv-10049-LJL. The website went live the following day. The complaint set out Baldoni and Wayfarer’s counter-narrative involving Lively, Ryan Reynolds, publicist Leslie Sloane, and other related parties.
The timeline reportedly traced events back to January 2019, when Baldoni approached author Colleen Hoover about adapting the novel. Its chronological format was designed to give readers a sequence of communications, production events, disputes, and publicity developments that Baldoni’s side said were important to understanding the case.
Why did Baldoni’s team publish the documents?
Baldoni’s lawyer Bryan Freedman said the team had the right to defend itself with the truth and intended to publish correspondence and relevant videos. Reporting at the time portrayed the website as an effort to challenge Lively’s allegations and give the public access to the defense’s version of events.
Based on the timing, contents, and public statements surrounding the launch, the website served three overlapping functions:
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute- Document distribution: It placed lengthy legal materials somewhere ordinary readers could access them without navigating a federal court docket.
- Narrative control: It allowed Baldoni’s team to present its chronology and interpretation before a trial or evidentiary hearing could test the competing accounts.
- Public-relations signaling: It encouraged readers and journalists to examine communications and footage rather than rely solely on summaries of the allegations in news coverage.
Those functions are an analysis of the site’s role, not an admission by the legal team that it was pursuing a particular public-relations strategy. The important distinction is that publishing documents can influence public understanding without resolving the underlying factual or legal questions.
Rank #2
What materials did the site and the defense release?
The amended complaint
A complaint is a party’s legal pleading. It explains the claims a plaintiff wants to pursue, the facts that party alleges, and the relief it seeks. It is not a neutral investigation and does not become proof merely because it is filed with a court.
Baldoni and Wayfarer’s amended complaint presented their allegations about the making and promotion of It Ends With Us, their interactions with Lively and Reynolds, and the conduct they said amounted to defamation and civil extortion, among other claims. The document was important because it was a formal filing, but readers should still describe its factual assertions as allegations by Baldoni and Wayfarer unless a court independently adopted a specific finding.
The 168-page timeline
The timeline was a curated chronology prepared for Baldoni’s side. A timeline can make a complicated dispute easier to follow, especially when it contains dates, messages, meetings, and production milestones. It can also foreground some events and interpretations while omitting or minimizing others.
That does not make a timeline useless. It means readers should treat it as an advocacy document: a guide to how one side organized the record, not a complete or court-certified history of the relationship or production.
Emails, texts, and film footage
Contemporaneous coverage also described emails and text exchanges between Baldoni and Lively, along with footage from the film. One widely discussed example was raw footage of a slow-dance scene that Baldoni’s side released separately through TMZ. His team argued that the footage undermined or contradicted Lively’s description of the interaction.
That is not the same as saying the video proved Lively lied. A short piece of footage may show what occurred in the recorded moment, but disputes about intent, prior conversations, surrounding conduct, editing, and the meaning of an interaction can remain unresolved. ABC’s contemporaneous account presented both Lively’s allegation and Baldoni’s response, rather than treating the footage as a conclusive answer.
How to read the website’s “evidence”
| Material | What it can show | What it cannot establish by itself |
|---|---|---|
| Amended complaint | Each side’s legal theory, allegations, requested relief, and account of relevant events. | That every factual assertion is true or that the claims will succeed. |
| Prepared timeline | How Baldoni’s team arranged dates and events to support its narrative. | That the chronology is complete, neutral, or accepted by the court. |
| Emails and texts | The words exchanged in particular communications, subject to authenticity and context. | The full relationship, omitted messages, intent, or the meaning both parties attached to the exchange. |
| Raw or selected footage | What a camera captured during a particular recorded moment. | Everything said or intended outside the frame, or the truth of broader harassment and retaliation allegations. |
| Court ruling | What claims survived or were dismissed under the applicable legal standards. | A blanket factual declaration that every allegation by one side was true or false. |
How did Blake Lively respond?
Lively’s attorneys characterized the website as part of an effort to silence or intimidate her. They described Baldoni’s public campaign as an attempt to reverse the roles of accuser and accused. Those descriptions were Lively’s legal and public-relations positions, just as Baldoni’s allegations were his side’s litigation position.
Contemporary reporting also said Lively and Reynolds sought court intervention to prevent or restrict publication of the website. The site remained accessible. Its continued availability should not be confused with a judicial endorsement of the materials: access to a filing or video does not decide whether the allegations in it are accurate.
The legal timeline after the website launch
The site appeared amid several overlapping complaints and lawsuits. The following timeline separates major procedural events from the parties’ disputed factual claims.
| Date | Event | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| December 20, 2024 | Lively filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department alleging sexual harassment and retaliation connected to the film’s production. | This was the first major formal step in the dispute described in the supplied record. |
| December 31, 2024 | Lively filed a federal lawsuit in New York. Baldoni also sued The New York Times over its reporting. | The conflict moved from public statements and agency filings into federal litigation. |
| January 16, 2025 | Baldoni and Wayfarer filed a separate lawsuit against Lively, Reynolds, Sloane, and related parties, seeking at least $400 million and asserting claims including defamation and civil extortion. | This was the lawsuit whose defense narrative Baldoni’s team later promoted through the website. |
| January 31, 2025 | Baldoni’s amended complaint was filed in the Southern District of New York in case 1:24-cv-10049-LJL. | The filing became one of the website’s two principal documents. |
| February 1, 2025 | The Lawsuit Info website went live. | This is the actual launch date; references to a 2026 launch are inaccurate. |
| June 2025 | Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed Baldoni’s defamation case against Lively and Reynolds and dismissed his defamation action against The New York Times, according to Reuters’ account of the rulings. | The dismissal changed the legal significance of Baldoni’s public allegations, but it was a ruling on legal claims—not a finding that every disputed event described on the website was false. |
| April 2, 2026 | Judge Liman dismissed ten of Lively’s thirteen claims. The court’s 152-page opinion discussed the film, production history, alleged workplace conduct, publicity activity, and legal claims. | Dismissal of ten claims did not amount to a factual finding that all of Lively’s allegations were untrue. It resolved claims under the governing legal standards. |
| May 4, 2026 | The parties announced a settlement, averting the scheduled civil trial. Contemporaneous Reuters reporting said the terms were not publicly disclosed. | The merits dispute ended without a trial verdict. |
| May 7, 2026 | A court filing stated that the parties had fully and finally resolved the consolidated action except Lively’s remaining issue concerning fees, costs, compensatory damages, and punitive damages under California Civil Code §47.1. | The court retained that post-settlement issue for adjudication without a right of appeal. |
| June 12, 2026 | Judge Liman granted Lively’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs under §47.1 but denied treble and punitive damages. | The court reasoned that Lively’s statements fell within the statute, that she prevailed in defending against Baldoni’s defamation claim, and that the record did not show malice. The order did not itself establish the final dollar amount. |
| June–July 2026 | Lively sought approximately $8 million in fees and costs. Later reporting said Baldoni’s side opposed the request or sought a substantial reduction. | The approximately $8 million figure was a request subject to review, not a confirmed payment or final damages award. |
What the court rulings do—and do not—say about the website
It is tempting to use later rulings to retrospectively label the website either vindicated or discredited. Neither conclusion follows automatically.
Rank #4
The June 2025 dismissals addressed Baldoni’s defamation claims against Lively, Reynolds, and The New York Times. The April 2026 order dismissed ten of Lively’s thirteen claims under the legal standards applicable to those claims. A dismissal can reflect pleading defects, privilege, statute-based protections, failure to satisfy an element, or another legal issue. It is not necessarily a factual determination that an alleged conversation, workplace incident, or public statement never occurred.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →The May 2026 settlement then removed the remaining merits claims from the path to trial. Because there was no civil trial verdict, there was no final jury determination resolving every factual conflict highlighted by the website, Lively’s filings, or the media coverage.
The June 12 fee ruling was narrower still. It awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in principle under California Civil Code §47.1 and rejected treble and punitive damages. It was not a damages verdict on the original harassment, retaliation, defamation, or extortion allegations. As of the latest reliable reporting reviewed for this article, the amount ultimately payable remained a fee-calculation issue.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Read the source novel for book-versus-film context
The legal dispute grew out of the adaptation of Colleen Hoover’s novel, published by Atria Books. If you want the fictional source rather than the litigation record, you can Colleen Hoover’s It Ends with Us. Reading the novel can help separate the source material from the film adaptation and the later legal controversy, but it cannot establish what happened behind the scenes during production.
Where the story stands now
The important correction is chronological: Justin Baldoni’s team did not newly launch the evidence website in 2026. It launched Lawsuit Info on February 1, 2025, immediately after filing an amended complaint, to make its defense narrative and supporting materials accessible to the public.
The site remains best understood as a litigation-advocacy repository. Its documents may help readers see the allegations, chronology, and selected materials that Baldoni’s side wanted emphasized. They should be read alongside Lively’s filings, the opposing public statements, and the court’s procedural rulings—not as a substitute for a neutral evidentiary record.
By August 12, 2026, the central litigation had been settled without a trial. The remaining legal question was how much, if anything, would ultimately be awarded in fees and costs after the June ruling. That unresolved calculation did not revive the original merits dispute or turn the website into a judicially authenticated account of events.
Sources and reporting context
- The Lawsuit Info website and the documents linked from it.
- Contemporaneous reporting by Hindustan Times and the Evening Standard on the February 1, 2025 launch and the published timeline.
- ABC reporting on the released slow-dance footage and the competing interpretations of that material.
- The amended complaint filed January 31, 2025, in the Southern District of New York, case 1:24-cv-10049-LJL.
- Judge Liman’s later orders and Reuters reporting on the 2025 dismissals, 2026 settlement, and fee proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Justin Baldoni’s team launch the website in 2026?
No. The website launched on February 1, 2025. It was created after Baldoni and Wayfarer filed an amended complaint in the Southern District of New York on January 31, 2025.
Did the website prove Baldoni’s or Blake Lively’s version of events?
No. The amended complaint, timeline, emails, texts, and footage presented Baldoni’s team’s allegations and interpretation. They were not an independent archive or a court finding, and the released footage did not conclusively resolve the competing accounts.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Was there a trial in the Baldoni-Lively case?
No. The parties announced a settlement on May 4, 2026, averting the scheduled civil trial. Settlement terms were not publicly disclosed in the contemporaneous reporting reviewed.
Was Blake Lively awarded $8 million in damages?
The June 12, 2026 ruling granted Lively attorneys’ fees and costs in principle under California Civil Code §47.1, while denying treble and punitive damages. The approximately $8 million figure later reported was a fee request subject to review, not a confirmed final award.
The Bottom Line
Bottom line: Baldoni’s team launched the Lawsuit Info website on February 1, 2025, to publish its side of the Blake Lively legal dispute. The complaint, timeline, communications, and footage were advocacy materials—not proof that settled the competing accounts. The merits litigation ended in a May 2026 settlement without a trial; as of August 12, 2026, only the amount of fees and costs remained to be calculated.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
