Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesTaylor Swift was drawn into the public story because she is friends with Blake Lively, messages described in court filings mentioned her, and Justin Baldoni’s legal team subpoenaed her in 2025. That does not make Swift a party to the case or establish that she influenced the film. Her spokesperson said Swift’s sole connection to It Ends With Us was licensing one song.
Why Taylor Swift’s name appeared in the case
Swift’s friendship with Lively and references to “Taylor” in messages described in Baldoni’s countersuit brought her into coverage of the dispute. CBS reported that the pleading referred to messages about an alleged script meeting attended by Lively, Ryan Reynolds and “Taylor.” Those references describe allegations and messages cited in a legal filing; they are not a court finding that Swift attended such a meeting or had creative control over the film. CBS News reported on the subpoena and the references in the countersuit.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
The Life of a Showgirl[Sweat & Vanilla Perfume Orange Glitter Vinyl] | $26.30 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
1989 [2 LP] | $24.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Fearless Platinum Edition[2 LP] | $24.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
1989 (Taylor's Version)[2 LP] | $44.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Red[2 LP] | $24.97 | Buy on Amazon |
What Swift’s spokesperson said about her role
When news emerged in May 2025 that Swift had been subpoenaed, her spokesperson said the subpoena used her name for publicity and rejected the idea that she had been involved in making the film. The spokesperson said Swift “never set foot on the set,” took no part in casting or creative decisions, did not score the film or review an edit, and did not see it until weeks after its public release. The spokesperson described her connection as “permitting the use of one song, ‘My Tears Ricochet.’” These are statements from Swift’s representative, not findings by a court. CBS News covered the spokesperson’s statement.
What the subpoena does—and does not—establish
A subpoena is a legal demand for information or testimony; its issuance alone does not show that the person named has relevant evidence, committed wrongdoing, or played a role in the conduct at issue. The reviewed reporting establishes that Baldoni’s legal team subpoenaed Swift in May 2025, but it does not establish that she testified or was forced to testify. Nor does it show that a court determined she influenced the production.
#1 Best Overall
- Taylor Swift's 12th studio album, The Life of a Showgirl, will be released worldwide October 3, 2025
How the main dispute ended
Lively and Baldoni settled their claims in early May 2026, before the trial that had been scheduled for that year. The settlement ended the main claims without a trial verdict resolving the parties’ competing accounts. The financial terms were not publicly announced in the Associated Press report of June 1, 2026. The dispute included allegations of harassment and retaliation by Lively, and claims and denials by the parties; a settlement is not a finding that either side’s allegations were true. The Associated Press reported on the settlement.
The later $407,451 fee award
On August 26, 2026, U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman awarded Lively $363,245 in attorneys’ fees and $44,206 in costs, totaling $407,451. Lively had sought $8 million. The Associated Press reported that the award applied California law to fees connected to defending against defamation claims. It was a post-settlement ruling about fees and costs—not a trial verdict on the underlying allegations. The Associated Press reported the fee ruling.
Rank #2
A separate subpoena ruling concerned a law firm
An August 4, 2025 opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York addressed a subpoena to the law firm Liner Freedman Taitelman Cooley. The court granted the motion to quash in part and denied it in part. That opinion concerned the firm’s subpoena, not Swift’s, and should not be treated as a ruling about Swift. It recounts Lively’s allegations; those allegations remain allegations. The court opinion is available through CourtListener.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What to take away about Swift’s connection
- Swift was subpoenaed in 2025, but that fact by itself establishes neither relevant testimony nor involvement in the alleged conduct.
- Her spokesperson said she was not involved in the film’s production and that her connection was licensing “My Tears Ricochet.”
- The parties settled before trial, so the main factual disputes were not resolved by a trial verdict.
- The later fee award addressed legal fees and costs, not the truth of every underlying allegation.
It Ends With Us, released in 2024, was adapted from Colleen Hoover’s 2016 novel. That is background on the film, not evidence about the legal dispute.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Quick Recap
Best Value
Rank #4
- The 1989 album changed my life in countless ways, and it fills me with such excitement to announce that my version of it will be out October 27th
Rank #3
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.




