The tension on the set of It Ends With Us didn’t just stay in the editing room. It spilled into a Manhattan federal court with a massive price tag attached. Honestly, if you followed the press tour, you probably felt the frostiness through your phone screen. But what started as a few "missing" Instagram follows turned into a high-stakes legal war that has Hollywood completely divided.
In early 2025, Justin Baldoni has filed a lawsuit against Blake Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, seeking a staggering $400 million in damages. The filing was a massive 179-page document that read more like a thriller script than a legal brief. Baldoni, through his production company Wayfarer Studios, basically accused the couple of "hijacking" the film and conducting a targeted campaign to destroy his career.
He didn't hold back.
The $400 Million Power Struggle
The core of the legal battle stems from a "hostile takeover" narrative. Baldoni claimed that Lively and Reynolds used their massive star power to seize creative control of the movie, effectively pushing him out of his own director’s chair. Imagine directing a film you spent years developing, only to have the lead actress’s husband—who isn't even in the movie—step in and start calling shots. That’s exactly what Baldoni alleged happened.
His lawsuit claimed that Lively and Reynolds:
- Weaponized their influence to "steal" the film.
- Pressured Sony executives to choose Lively's edit over Baldoni’s.
- Orchestrated a smear campaign that made him look like the villain of the press tour.
Baldoni’s legal team, led by Bryan Freedman, argued that the "It Ends With Us" press cycle was a calculated hit job. While the world was busy asking why Blake Lively was wearing florals to a movie about domestic violence, Baldoni was allegedly being frozen out of every major event.
🔗 Read more: Why Sexy Pictures of Mariah Carey Are Actually a Masterclass in Branding
What Most People Get Wrong About the Legal Fallout
There’s a common misconception that this was a simple case of "he said, she said" during filming. It was much deeper. Before Baldoni’s massive countersuit, Lively actually made the first move. In December 2024, she filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department. She accused Baldoni of creating a "hostile workplace" and making inappropriate, sexually charged comments on set.
Baldoni’s $400 million suit was a direct response to these claims. He basically said the harassment allegations were a "smoke screen" designed to hide the fact that she was trying to seize his business. He even claimed she made fun of his appearance, specifically suggesting he needed a "nose job," which isn't exactly the kind of professional feedback you'd expect on a multimillion-dollar set.
"She set out to destroy plaintiffs' livelihoods and businesses if they did not bend to her incessant demands," the lawsuit stated.
In a twist that sounds like a tabloid fever dream, Baldoni’s filings also mentioned that Lively was so comfortable with him at one point that she breastfed in front of him during meetings. He used this detail to argue that the "sexual harassment" narrative was a total fabrication born out of a later creative disagreement.
Why the Judge Tossed Part of the Case
Legal battles in Hollywood rarely go according to plan. In June 2025, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman threw a massive wrench in Baldoni’s plans. He dismissed the $400 million defamation and extortion claims against Lively and Reynolds.
💡 You might also like: Lindsay Lohan Leak: What Really Happened with the List and the Scams
The judge’s reasoning? It was pretty technical. He ruled that Baldoni couldn't sue for defamation over claims made within a legal filing because those are generally protected by "litigation privilege." Essentially, you can say almost anything in a lawsuit without it being considered libel. Additionally, the judge found that Lively’s "creative hijacking" didn't meet the legal definition of extortion under California law.
But it wasn't a total loss for Baldoni. The court allowed him to potentially revise the lawsuit to focus on breach of contract. If Lively had an obligation to promote the film and didn't, or if she violated specific terms of her deal, there might still be a path to victory for the Wayfarer team.
Recent Bombshells from the Deposition
As we head into 2026, new details are still leaking out from unsealed documents. Just this month, transcripts from an October 2025 deposition revealed some truly bizarre behind-the-scenes dynamics.
Baldoni claimed that Lively requested all their meetings take place at her New York City penthouse, which she jokingly called "Buckingham Palace" because of all the celebrities who walked through its doors.
- He described one meeting where Ryan Reynolds allegedly "unloaded" on him.
- The tension was so thick that Baldoni reportedly broke down in tears after being "berated" for asking about Lively's weight—a question he says was necessary for a scene involving a lift.
- Unsealed texts from December 2023 show Baldoni telling his agent he felt Lively was "setting a trap" by refusing to use a body double for sex scenes, only to later insist he use one.
What’s Next for the Trial?
The legal war is far from over. While Baldoni’s original massive countersuit took a hit, Lively’s primary lawsuit against him for sexual harassment and retaliation is still very much alive.
📖 Related: Kaley Cuoco Tit Size: What Most People Get Wrong About Her Transformation
The trial is currently scheduled for May 18, 2026.
This means we’re likely to see more "unsealed" texts and awkward deposition clips in the coming months. Both sides are digging in. Lively is now attempting to subpoena communications from heavy hitters like Scooter Braun, trying to prove that Baldoni’s PR team was the one actually running the smear campaign.
If you're following this, here are the three things you need to watch for as the trial date approaches:
- The "Secret" Edit: Will the court ever force the release of the different versions of the movie? Baldoni claims Lively’s edit changed the core message of Colleen Hoover’s book.
- Witness Lists: We’ve already seen Taylor Swift and Hugh Jackman mentioned in court filings. If they actually get called to testify, this becomes the biggest celebrity trial since Depp v. Heard.
- The Settlement Factor: Most of these cases settle right before the trial starts. However, given the amount of personal animosity here, both parties seem determined to "win" in the court of public opinion.
For anyone looking to keep their brand or business safe from this kind of public fallout, the takeaway is clear: paper everything. The only reason we know about the "Buckingham Palace" meetings or the specific text messages is because someone kept the receipts. In Hollywood, the script on the page matters, but the paper trail in the courtroom matters more.
Stay updated on the official court dockets for the Southern District of New York if you want the raw filings without the tabloid spin. The May trial date will be the final word on whether this was a case of workplace abuse or a creative power play gone wrong.