You’ve seen the headlines. You’ve probably seen the TikToks too. The It Ends With Us drama has basically become the modern-day War of the Roses, but with more floral arrangements and way more lawyers. For a while, it felt like the internet was just picking teams—Team Blake or Team Justin—but lately, the "he said, she said" has turned into "he sued, she sued."
Honestly, keeping track of the legal filings is a full-time job.
We’re now deep into the fallout, and word is that Justin Baldoni is reportedly preparing a counterclaim against Blake Lively as their legal battle moves toward a scheduled trial in May 2026. This isn't just a creative disagreement anymore. It’s a $400 million mess involving allegations of smear campaigns, "creative hijacking," and some very awkward texts about "Buckingham Palace."
The "Trap" and the Tensions
Let’s get into the weeds of why things got so ugly. According to unsealed court documents from January 2026, Baldoni didn't just feel out of the loop; he felt like he was being set up. In a December 2023 text to his former agent at WME, Baldoni vented that Lively was "setting me up for a trap."
The specific issue? Intimate scenes.
Baldoni claimed Lively refused to use a body double for sex scenes, which sounds professional enough, except he alleges she then turned around and used that very situation to frame him as inappropriate. He also complained that she was "rewriting the writer and director" on the fly. If you’ve ever had a coworker try to do your job while you’re standing right there, you can probably imagine how that felt on a multimillion-dollar film set.
- Baldoni says he gave her "95% of what she wants for peace."
- Lively claims he made the set a "hostile work environment."
- There's a 132-page ruling from Judge Lewis J. Liman that recently tossed some of Baldoni's initial claims, but left the door open for him to refile.
It’s messy. Really messy.
Why the $400 Million Counterclaim Matters
When people hear "counterclaim," they think it's just a "no, you" in legal form. But Baldoni's legal team, led by Bryan Freedman (often called Hollywood's "Dark Knight"), is swinging for the fences. The $400 million figure isn't just a random number; it’s a calculated strike against the combined power of Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.
🔗 Read more: Look Like Angelina Jolie: Why Most People Get the Aesthetic Wrong
Baldoni’s side argues that Lively and her husband basically staged a "hostile takeover" of the movie. They allege the couple used their massive PR machine to smear Baldoni, effectively ruining his reputation as a filmmaker just as his biggest project was hitting theaters.
Imagine working on a project for years, only to have the star’s husband—who isn't even officially on the crew—show up and start calling the shots. Baldoni claims Reynolds berated him over a comment about Lively’s weight (which Baldoni says was related to his own back injury during a lifting scene). It’s the kind of high-stakes drama that makes for a great movie, except these are real people's careers.
The "Buckingham Palace" of it All
One of the weirder details to come out lately is Baldoni’s deposition claim that Blake Lively calls her home office "Buckingham Palace."
Kinda puts things in perspective, doesn't it?
👉 See also: Liam Payne TMZ Images: Why the Internet Still Won't Forgive That Choice
Baldoni alleges that Lively insisted all meetings for the film take place at her penthouse because so many "celebrities" visit there. He used this to paint a picture of an actress who felt she was above the production, someone who wanted to control the environment down to the last detail.
On the flip side, Lively’s team says this is a classic case of DARVO: Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender. They argue that Baldoni is trying to distract from the actual allegations of sexual harassment she filed against him in late 2024. They claim he made inappropriate comments and made her feel unsafe on set.
What’s Next for the Case?
If you're waiting for a quick resolution, don't hold your breath. Judge Liman dismissed Baldoni's initial defamation and extortion claims in June 2025, but that wasn't the end of the road. Baldoni’s lawyers were given the green light to revise and refile claims regarding contract interference.
That’s where we are now.
The trial is currently set for May 18, 2026. Between now and then, we’re likely to see more unsealed texts, more depositions, and probably a few more "leaks" to the press. Even Colleen Hoover, the author of the book, has stepped back, recently telling Elle that the whole thing feels like a "circus" that has "tainted" her work.
What you should keep an eye on:
- Refiled Claims: Watch to see if Baldoni’s team can successfully argue that Lively interfered with his business contracts.
- Discovery Phase: More private messages between the stars are expected to be made public.
- Witness Lists: There was a whole side-quest where Baldoni tried to subpoena Taylor Swift because he claimed she witnessed a key dispute. Swift's team denied she was ever on set, but that hasn't stopped the legal maneuvering.
Practical Takeaways from the Drama
Watching celebrities sue each other for $400 million is entertaining, but there are a few real-world lessons here about professional boundaries.
- Document Everything: Baldoni's save-the-day move was keeping those texts with his agent. In any dispute, the "paper trail" is your best friend.
- PR is a Weapon: This case proves that the "court of public opinion" often moves faster than the actual court. Both sides used the media to frame the narrative before a single judge even looked at the evidence.
- Creative Control has Limits: If you're an actor, know your contract. If you're a director, know your boundaries. Most of this conflict stemmed from a lack of clarity on who had the final "say" in the editing room.
The battle is far from over. As Justin Baldoni is reportedly preparing a counterclaim against Blake Lively for the next phase of this legal war, the industry is watching closely. This case could set a massive precedent for how "creative differences" and on-set behavior are handled in the age of superstar producers.
Follow the court dockets rather than the hashtags. The real story is in the 244-page complaints, not the 15-second clips.