Lively's Legal Victory
Judge Awards Blake Lively Attorneys' Fees But Denies Punitive Damages in Baldoni Lawsuit
Anonymous
Key Points
1
In granting Lively’s request for fees and costs under California Civil Code Section 47.1, Judge Lewis J. Liman wrote that “on this record, the Wayfarer Parties have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating that the Section 47.1 privilege does not apply,” concluding Lively was therefore “entitled to fees and costs.”
2
At a June hearing, Baldoni’s attorney argued Lively was trying to “an end run around a jury trial” and that she could not recover damages under the California statute.
3
The parties settled “just two weeks before trial,” with both sides “publicly declaring victory,” and Lively’s side had previously sought $300 million in damages before the settlement.
4
Under the May settlement, Baldoni waived his right to appeal Liman’s earlier dismissal of his $400 million defamation lawsuit against Lively—making the related judgment final and helping set up Lively’s successful bid for fees.
A federal judge ruled on June 12 that Justin Baldoni and his Wayfarer Studios must pay Blake Lively's attorneys' fees and litigation costs — but she will not get the larger punitive or treble damages she sought. U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman said California Civil Code Section 47.1, a 2023 law protecting sexual harassment accusers from retaliatory defamation suits, entitled Lively to fee recovery after Baldoni's $400 million defamation lawsuit was dismissed The Wrap.
The ruling follows a confidential May 2026 settlement reached just two weeks before a scheduled Manhattan trial Us Magazine. Both sides publicly claimed victory, but no payment terms were disclosed. The court still must determine the exact dollar amount Wayfarer owes Lively in fees and costs.
How a 2023 California Law Handed Lively Her Win
California Civil Code Section 47.1 was designed to shield people who report sexual misconduct from being hit with retaliatory defamation suits. Under the law, if the accused wins, they can recover attorneys' fees and, potentially, triple damages. Lively argued she qualified as a prevailing defendant after Baldoni's $400 million suit was thrown out in June 2025 Us Magazine.
Judge Liman agreed on the fees. He wrote that "the Wayfarer Parties have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating that the Section 47.1 privilege does not apply," making Lively "entitled to fees and costs" The Wrap. Lively's attorney Esra Hudson said the ruling showed Lively "brought her claims in good faith" and was the "prevailing defendant" under the statute.
Judge Blocks Treble Damages as an End Run Around Federal Rules
Lively's team also sought treble — meaning triple — damages and punitive damages under Section 47.1. Judge Liman said no. He ruled that the California statute is a "narrow exception" and cannot be used to bypass "carefully crafted federal procedural rules" Reality Tea. The decision was made on procedural grounds, not on the underlying merits of the harassment claims.
Baldoni's attorney Bryan Freedman had argued at a June hearing that Lively was trying to make "an end run around a jury trial" by seeking extra damages after the case had already settled Us Magazine. Liman left open the possibility that Lively could still pursue damages through a separate lawsuit or counterclaim — but denied her request as it stood.
Settlement Mechanics That Made the Fee Award Possible
The May settlement was structured carefully. As part of the deal, Baldoni waived his right to appeal Liman's earlier dismissal of his defamation suit Newsy Today. That waiver made the dismissal order final. A final court order — rather than just a private settlement — gave Lively the legal standing to go back to court and claim fees under Section 47.1.
Before the settlement, Lively's side had sought $300 million in damages. Baldoni had sought $400 million. Combined legal fees for both sides are estimated at roughly $60 million Us Magazine. The global box office for the film at the center of the dispute, "It Ends With Us," reached $351 million The Wrap.
What This Ruling Means for Future Harassment Cases
This was the first high-profile test of Section 47.1 in federal court. The ruling signals that the law can shift legal bills away from harassment accusers — but it will not automatically unlock large damage multipliers in federal court. Victoria Burke, who authored the original California bill behind Section 47.1, has argued that a finding of "no malice" must be clearly established before fees are awarded Reality Tea.
Legal observers called the outcome a split decision. Lively gets her legal bills paid — a sum likely running into the millions — but did not secure the punitive windfall she sought. The judge's ruling makes clear that state-level damage multipliers face a high bar when brought into federal court under diversity jurisdiction Yahoo News.
Sentiment
Mostly NegativeNEGATIVENEUTRALPOSITIVE
Publishers
37
Articles
196
Reach
233
A
AnonymousAuthor
