The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Blake Lively alleges that Justin Baldoni and others sexually harassed her during the making of It Ends With Us, and that members of the film’s production side retaliated after she raised concerns by trying to damage her reputation. Those are allegations, not findings that the conduct occurred. In an April 2, 2026 ruling, a federal judge allowed three claims to proceed; the ruling did not decide that Lively’s allegations were true.
What Lively says happened during production
In a California Civil Rights Department complaint and a federal lawsuit filed in December 2024, Lively alleged sexual harassment and other disturbing conduct by Baldoni and a producer while they worked on It Ends With Us. She said that she and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, raised concerns about repeated harassment and other behavior, and that the Wayfarer side retaliated afterward.
The court’s April 2026 opinion describes Lively’s account of the production and the steps she said she sought before returning to work. She said incidents during the first phase of production created a hostile work environment. After filming paused during industry strikes, her lawyer sent a November 2023 list of requested protections, including intimacy coordinators and nudity riders for intimate scenes. The parties later signed a Contract Rider Agreement.
Lively also alleged that the response to her concerns included a coordinated effort to harm her public reputation. Her complaint described plans to seed theories on online message boards, generate social-media activity, and place negative stories. Those descriptions are allegations in her pleadings, not findings by the court.
#1 Best Overall
How Baldoni’s side responded
In an Associated Press report published Dec. 21, 2024, Bryan Freedman, a lawyer for Baldoni and other Wayfarer parties, called the claims “completely false, outrageous and intentionally salacious.” That was counsel’s response to the allegations, not a court determination about their truth.
What the court has—and has not—decided
On April 2, 2026, Judge Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted judgment to defendants on all but three claims in Lively’s operative complaint. The court wrote, “The motions are granted in part and denied in part.” The three claims left for further proceedings were:
Rank #2
- Lively’s retaliation claim against It Ends With Us Movie LLC and Wayfarer.
- Aiding and abetting retaliation against The Agency Group PR LLC.
- Breach of the Contract Rider Agreement against It Ends With Us Movie LLC.
Baldoni is not named as a defendant to those three surviving claims. Their survival does not establish liability or prove the alleged harassment or retaliation. The court said disputed facts on the motions were construed in Lively’s favor as the non-moving party; that procedural approach is not a trial finding. The identified orders do not establish a trial date or final disposition of the surviving claims.
Key dates in the dispute
| Date | Development |
|---|---|
| Dec. 20, 2024 | Lively filed an administrative complaint with California’s Civil Rights Department. |
| Dec. 31, 2024 | Lively filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. |
| January 2025 | The Wayfarer parties sued Lively, Reynolds, and publicist Leslie Sloane; an amended pleading later added The New York Times. |
| June 9, 2025 | The court dismissed the amended Wayfarer pleading, allowing limited leave to amend certain contract-related claims. The Wayfarer parties did not file another amended complaint. |
| July 30, 2025 | Lively filed the Second Amended Complaint, the operative complaint addressed by the 2026 ruling. |
| April 2, 2026 | The court’s mixed ruling left three claims for further proceedings and granted judgment to defendants on the others. |
A separate ruling on fees and costs
In orders dated June 12 and Aug. 26, 2026, the court determined that Lively qualified under California Civil Code § 47.1 for attorneys’ fees and costs connected with defending against defamation claims in the related Wayfarer action. The Aug. 26 order awarded her $363,245.40 in attorneys’ fees and $44,206.35 in costs, while denying compensatory and punitive damages. This fee-and-cost award is separate from the merits of the three claims that remained after the April ruling.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
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.
