A New York federal judge dismissed Justin Baldoni’s $400 million defamation lawsuit against Blake Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, publicist Leslie Sloane, and The New York Times on June 9, 2025. The court found that Lively’s allegations of sexual harassment—filed with California’s Civil Rights Department—were legally privileged and cannot form the basis for defamation claims. The lawsuit also included allegations of extortion and wrongful behavior in undermining his film It Ends With Us, but the judge found no legal grounds for those claims either.

Judge Lewis Liman noted that for a defamation claim to move forward, Baldoni would need to show “actual malice”—proof that Lively knowingly shared false statements. He failed to meet this legal standard. In his 132-page ruling, Liman also dismissed Baldoni’s associated $250 million suit against The New York Times, emphasizing the protections provided by fair‑report privilege when reporting on legal matters.

Reactions from the Parties

Lively’s legal team, including attorneys Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb, described the dismissal as “a total victory and a complete vindication” for Blake Lively, as well as for Reynolds, Sloane, and The New York Times. Lively herself expressed this sentiment on social media, acknowledging widespread support: “With love and gratitude for the many who stood by me… I will never stop appreciating or advocating for you”. She emphasized her commitment to “every woman’s right to have a voice in protecting themselves, including their safety, their integrity, their dignity and their story”.

Baldoni’s team has been granted until June 23 to refile a narrower lawsuit focusing on potential contractual interference—but he can no longer pursue defamation under the current framework. Lively continues her own lawsuit, scheduled for trial in March 2026, following her initial harassment complaint.

Why This Matters

This case underscores the robust legal protections afforded to individuals when filing civil rights complaints. Communications made under legal privilege are widely shielded from defamation actions—a principle reaffirmed by Judge Liman. The ruling highlights how difficult it is to prove defamation in cases involving privileged statements, especially when claims of “actual malice” are involved.

The prolonged public legal battle has also sparked criticism of attempts to use massive defamation claims as deterrents—what Lively’s camp referred to as a “vengeful lawsuit.” The court’s decision to dismiss the countersuit sets a precedent against the weaponization of litigation.

What Comes Next

Baldoni may refile limited claims related to contractual issues, but the high-profile $400 million defamation case is now defunct. Lively’s lawsuit over harassment allegations will proceed to trial in March 2026. Meanwhile, Reynolds, Sloane, and The New York Times continue to pursue attorneys’ fees and damages stemming from the countersuit filing.

Key Takeaways

• Privileged statements: Lively’s initial complaint was protected, making defamation claims untenable.
• Failure to show actual malice: Baldoni couldn’t meet the standard required for defamation.
• Protected journalism: The New York Times’ coverage was upheld as fair report privilege.
• Pending claims: Limited refiled claims permitted; harassment trial set for March 2026 .

Final Thoughts

This ruling marks a decisive legal victory for Blake Lively and her allies, reaffirming the protections afforded to individuals when reporting grievances under legal privilege. It also dampens attempts to weaponize defamation lawsuits for retaliation. With trial dates pending, the case is far from over—but the vanished $400 million claim is now a cautionary tale against aggressive countersuits.

For more stories and insights, visit It’s On

Instagram:@itson.ie

TikTok videos and information:@itson.ie