The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →The $161 million figure was a damages claim attributed to Blake Lively’s side—not money awarded by a judge. The parties settled the claims that remained for trial in May 2026. In a separate ruling about fees for defending a dismissed defamation claim, the court later awarded Lively $363,245.40 in attorneys’ fees and $44,206.35 in costs, while denying compensatory and punitive damages in that proceeding.
What does the $161 million figure mean?
It is the amount of damages Lively was reported to be seeking over an alleged smear campaign connected to the film It Ends With Us. It was not a court valuation, jury verdict or final award. The reviewed court rulings do not independently establish how the $161 million was calculated or provide a breakdown of it.
The case’s later financial figures concern different matters:
| Figure | What it refers to | Court outcome |
|---|---|---|
| $161 million | Damages claim attributed to Lively’s side over the alleged campaign | Not awarded by the court; the reviewed rulings do not establish its calculation |
| $8,035,040.88 | Fees and costs Lively sought in the separate statutory-fee proceeding, including $7,495,526.87 in attorneys’ fees and $539,514.01 in costs | The court awarded $363,245.40 in attorneys’ fees and $44,206.35 in costs in its August 26, 2026 judgment |
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York’s August 26, 2026 judgment concerned statutory fees and costs for defending a dismissed defamation claim. It was not an award of damages for the alleged smear campaign. The Associated Press described the judgment as just over $400,000.
#1 Best Overall
What happened in the lawsuit?
- December 2024: Lively filed an administrative complaint with California’s Civil Rights Department on December 20, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation related to the film’s production and marketing. She filed suit in the Southern District of New York on December 31. The Wayfarer Parties filed a related action against Lively and others, including a defamation claim.
- June 9, 2025: The court dismissed the Wayfarer Parties’ amended complaint, including its defamation claim against Lively. It held that California’s fair-report privilege covered her provision of the CRD complaint to The New York Times, including advance communication when a party intends in good faith to file a complaint in an official proceeding.
- April 2, 2026: The court granted defendants’ summary-judgment motions on most claims, but left three claims for trial: retaliation against It Ends With Us Movie LLC and Wayfarer Studios; aiding and abetting retaliation against The Agency Group PR LLC; and breach of the Contract Rider Agreement against It Ends With Us Movie LLC.
- May 4, 2026: The parties settled those three remaining claims before trial, according to the court’s later fee order.
- August 26, 2026: The court entered its judgment in the separate statutory-fee proceeding.
Did a court find that a smear campaign happened?
No. Lively alleged that the Wayfarer Parties retaliated after she raised harassment complaints by launching a campaign intended to damage her reputation. The April 2, 2026 ruling decided whether the remaining claims could proceed to trial—not whether the alleged campaign had been proved.
In assessing summary judgment, the court considered the evidence in Lively’s favor and said it could not decide credibility at that stage. Judge Lewis J. Liman wrote: “At this stage, the Court need not, and may not, pass on whose account is more credible.” The opinion also said, “The evidence here, viewed favorably to Lively, passes this test.” In context, that meant the evidence met the test for allowing claims to proceed, not that the court had found the allegations true.
What the court said about the reported evidence
The April 2026 opinion summarized expert evidence from Professor Ashlee Humphreys. Her estimate described more than 176 million online impressions using negative labels about Lively, including “bully,” “mean girl” and “tone deaf.” The opinion also discussed polling from June through September 2024 that indicated a 30% increase in negative attitudes toward Lively.
Those are figures reported in the expert analysis as summarized by the court. They are not judicial findings that a campaign caused the impressions or the change in polling attitudes.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →What did the judge award Lively?
In the separate proceeding under California Civil Code § 47.1, the court ruled that Lively could recover attorneys’ fees and costs for defending the dismissed defamation claim. It denied compensatory and punitive damages in that proceeding. The August 26, 2026 judgment set the recoverable fees and costs at the amounts shown above.
That ruling should not be conflated with the settlement of the three remaining claims: those claims were resolved by the parties before trial, while the fee judgment addressed the statutory fee dispute over the dismissed defamation claim.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What was the Sourced Intelligence subpoena dispute?
A separate 2025 proceeding concerned Lively’s effort to compel records from Sourced Intelligence. In a September 19, 2025 order, Judge Liman said Lively had not shown that the company likely possessed relevant, nonprivileged information and described her theory as speculative. The opinion also recounted a sworn denial by the company’s founding partner that the company had worked on social-media monitoring, influence operations, digital erasure, web monitoring or the alleged campaign. The court denied the motion to compel.
That ruling concerned the subpoena and the showing for discovery from that company. It was not a decision on whether Lively’s underlying retaliation allegations were true.
Recommended Free Tools
Best Value
What is the film’s connection to the case?
It Ends With Us is based on Colleen Hoover’s novel of the same name. The film’s production and marketing are part of the context for Lively’s allegations; the novel itself is not evidence for or against them.
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.
