Published
June 23, 2026
A Private Dispute · Allegations Unproven
This article describes a private lawsuit between named parties. The underlying allegations on all sides — Blake Lively's harassment and retaliation claims, and the Wayfarer parties' defamation claims — remain unproven; no court has found any party liable on those claims, and the broader litigation settled before trial. The June 12, 2026 ruling addressed only Lively's statutory entitlement to attorneys' fees. There is no class action and nothing to claim. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
A federal judge has ruled that Blake Lively may recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs associated with defending against defamation claims brought by Justin Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios and related parties. The court has not yet determined how much Lively will receive.U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman issued the ruling on June 12, 2026, granting Lively's motion in part under California Civil Code Section 47.1 in the consolidated It Ends With Us litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The law protects certain communications concerning sexual assault, harassment or discrimination when they are made without malice. Judge Liman concluded that Lively's relevant communications fell within the scope of the statute and that the Wayfarer parties had not presented sufficient evidence showing she acted with malice. As of June 23, 2026, no dollar amount has been requested or awarded.
Status
Fees Granted · Amount Undecided
June 12, 2026 ruling under California Civil Code § 47.1
Key Dates
Fee request due June 29, 2026
Wayfarer parties may respond by July 13, 2026
Can I Claim?
No — private dispute, nothing to claim
Not a class action; no compensation fund or public claim form
Judge Denies Treble and Punitive Damages
The ruling was not a complete victory for Lively. Judge Liman denied her requests for treble damages and punitive damages. The denial was based largely on the procedure Lively used to seek that relief. She submitted the request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), which provides a process for recovering attorneys' fees and certain costs after judgment. The judge concluded that the rule could not be used to obtain treble or punitive damages.The court explained that those damages are legally distinct from attorneys' fees and costs. It also suggested that such damages might ordinarily need to be pursued through a separate claim or counterclaim — where both sides would receive the procedural protections ordinarily associated with a claim for damages, including pleadings, discovery and, when applicable, a jury trial — rather than through a post-judgment fee motion. The opinion did not categorically hold that damages under Section 47.1 could never be available in federal court; it concluded that Lively had selected the wrong procedure.
What Is California Civil Code Section 47.1?
California enacted Section 47.1 in 2023 to protect certain communications concerning sexual assault, harassment and discrimination. The law generally provides a qualified privilege for factual communications made without malice by someone discussing sexual assault, harassment, discrimination or retaliation that the person experienced. The protection applies when the person had a reasonable basis to file a complaint concerning the alleged conduct, regardless of whether a formal complaint was ultimately filed.A prevailing defendant sued for defamation over a communication protected by Section 47.1 may recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The statute also references treble damages for harm caused by the defamation lawsuit and punitive damages when the applicable legal requirements are satisfied. Judge Liman described the statute as resembling an anti-SLAPP law because it seeks to discourage lawsuits that may silence people who report sexual misconduct. Unlike California's traditional anti-SLAPP statute, however, Section 47.1 does not establish a special motion, expedited schedule or separate procedural system — a distinction that mattered because the dispute was decided in federal court, where federal procedural rules apply even when California law supplies the substantive rights.
How the Dispute Reached This Point
The fee dispute arose from the defamation lawsuit filed against Lively following the breakdown of her relationship with Baldoni and others involved in the production and promotion of It Ends With Us. Lively filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department in December 2024 alleging that Baldoni and others subjected her to sexual harassment and that members of the Wayfarer group retaliated against her after she raised concerns. She subsequently filed a federal lawsuit in New York. Approximately two weeks later, Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios and several associated individuals and companies filed their own lawsuit, which included allegations that Lively defamed them.Judge Liman dismissed the Wayfarer parties' amended complaint in June 2025. The court concluded that California's fair report privilege protected Lively from liability for allegedly giving a copy of her Civil Rights Department complaint to The New York Times, and found deficiencies in the remaining defamation allegations. That dismissal did not resolve Lively's separate request for fees under Section 47.1, which she renewed after the dismissal became final.
Court Finds Lively's Communications Were Covered
The first question was whether Lively's disputed communications concerned the type of conduct covered by Section 47.1. Judge Liman found that they did: the statements concerned alleged sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation that Lively said she personally experienced during her professional relationship with Baldoni and the production. The Wayfarer parties disputed the truth of her account, but the judge rejected the argument that Lively had to prove every underlying allegation before receiving the statute's protection.According to the opinion, requiring a defamation defendant to prove the truth of her allegations before the privilege could apply would largely defeat the purpose of the law, which is intended to protect qualifying speakers from the burdens and costs of retaliatory defamation litigation, including extensive discovery. The judge concluded that Lively had satisfied her initial burden by showing that the disputed statements concerned allegations that fit within the subject matter protected by the statute.
Wayfarer Parties Failed to Prove Malice
Once Lively established that the communications occurred on a potentially privileged occasion, the burden shifted to the Wayfarer parties to demonstrate that she acted with actual malice — through evidence that the statements were motivated by hatred or ill will exceeding what the situation justified, or that she lacked reasonable grounds to believe them and acted with reckless disregard for the rights of the people she accused.Judge Liman acknowledged that the Wayfarer complaint contained allegations that, if accepted as true, could plausibly support an inference of malice; the complaint disputed several specific factual assertions and alleged that Lively knew her statements were false. The court nevertheless drew a distinction between allegations and evidence. Allegations may be sufficient to survive certain arguments at the pleading stage, but the fee motion permitted the court to evaluate the available evidence.
The Wayfarer parties did not request additional discovery or an evidentiary hearing on the issue. Instead, they relied on three deposition excerpts, most of which addressed whether the relevant filming took place in New Jersey — an issue connected to their argument that the California statute should not apply. The only evidence that arguably concerned Lively's motives involved testimony about a message using the word “extortion” to describe cumulative behavior that Wayfarer and Baldoni allegedly had to manage. Judge Liman found that the testimony did not establish that the comment concerned false harassment allegations, rather than disagreements over the script, editing or Lively's return to the set. The court therefore concluded that the Wayfarer parties had not produced evidence sufficient to show malice.
The Ruling Does Not Decide Whether Every Allegation Was True
The decision should not be read as a trial verdict confirming every factual allegation made by Lively. Judge Liman did not conduct a trial to determine exactly what happened during the production of It Ends With Us. The decision instead addresses the application of Section 47.1 to the evidence submitted with the fee motion: the court found that Lively's communications concerned conduct covered by the statute and that the Wayfarer parties failed to meet their burden of proving malice on the record before the court. That was sufficient to establish her entitlement to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.Court Rejects Wayfarer's Other Challenges
The Wayfarer parties raised additional objections. They argued that the statute should not apply outside California, that fee shifting could infringe the First Amendment right to petition the courts, and that another California privilege protecting statements made in judicial proceedings should prevent the award. Judge Liman rejected those arguments.The court observed that the Wayfarer parties themselves had relied on California law when bringing their defamation claim and had previously agreed that California law applied; the judge found it unlikely that California lawmakers intended plaintiffs to invoke California defamation law while avoiding the state-law privileges that limit those claims. The court also concluded that requiring an unsuccessful plaintiff to pay attorneys' fees is not the same as imposing civil liability merely for filing a lawsuit, and that Section 47.1 is more specific than California's general litigation privilege and would lose much of its practical meaning if the broader privilege automatically prevented fee awards.
Settlement Preserved the Fee Dispute
Lively and the Wayfarer parties filed a settlement and joint stipulation on May 7, 2026, shortly before the broader litigation was scheduled for trial. The settlement ended the principal lawsuits but specifically preserved Lively's pending Section 47.1 motion; the parties agreed that she did not release her request for attorneys' fees, costs or other relief associated with that motion, and they agreed to waive an appeal of the court's determination of the motion. As a result, the June 12 decision became one of the final unresolved components of the litigation even though the broader dispute had already settled.How Much Could Blake Lively Receive?
No official amount has been requested or awarded. Any dollar figures circulating online remain speculative until Lively submits her billing records and formal calculations. The latest schedule requires Lively to file a memorandum, supporting declarations and evidence documenting her requested attorneys' fees and costs by June 29, 2026. The Wayfarer parties will then have until July 13, 2026, to respond. Judge Liman stated that the court will not accept further briefing or evidence unless a party demonstrates good cause.The records supporting the request may include attorney declarations, billing summaries, hourly rates, descriptions of the work performed and documentation of recoverable costs. The ruling does not automatically require the Wayfarer parties to reimburse every legal expense Lively incurred throughout the entire dispute. Judge Liman cautioned that the final calculation may involve apportionment: Lively defended against multiple claims, but Section 47.1 provides fees in connection with the protected defamation claim, so the court may examine whether particular legal tasks related exclusively to that claim, exclusively to other claims, or to issues shared among several claims. Work involving overlapping facts or legal issues may still be recoverable under applicable fee principles. The Wayfarer parties may challenge the number of hours billed, the attorneys' hourly rates, the connection between specific work and the defamation claim, and whether any expenses were unnecessary, duplicative or excessive. After reviewing both sides' submissions, the court may approve the requested amount, reduce it or require adjustments.
What Happens Next?
The central legal question has now been answered: Lively qualifies for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under California Civil Code Section 47.1. The remaining fight concerns the size of that award. Her June 29 filing should provide the first official figure showing how much she is seeking, and the Wayfarer parties' July 13 response will likely argue that the amount should be limited to work reasonably attributable to the dismissed defamation claim. The court will then determine the amount that Justin Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios and the other Wayfarer parties must pay.This remains a private entertainment-industry lawsuit. It is not a class action settlement, and there is no public claim form or compensation program associated with the ruling.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Blake Lively win her lawsuit against Justin Baldoni?
The broader litigation settled on May 7, 2026. The June 12, 2026 ruling did not decide who was right about the underlying allegations; it decided only that Lively is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under California Civil Code Section 47.1 for defending against the Wayfarer parties' defamation claims. There was no trial verdict on the underlying allegations.
How much money will Blake Lively receive?
No amount has been requested or awarded. The court ordered Lively to file her fee request with supporting evidence by June 29, 2026, and the Wayfarer parties may respond by July 13, 2026. Any specific dollar figures circulating before then are speculative.
Is there a class action settlement or claim form for this case?
No. This is a private dispute between named parties. There is no class action settlement, no consumer compensation fund, and no public claim form associated with the ruling.
Why did the judge deny treble and punitive damages?
Lively sought those damages through Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), which provides a process for recovering attorneys' fees and certain costs after judgment. The court found Rule 54(d) cannot be used to obtain treble or punitive damages, which are legally distinct from fees and would ordinarily be pursued through a separate claim or counterclaim.
Sources
- Opinion and Order on Blake Lively's motion for attorneys' fees under California Civil Code § 47.1, U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, June 12, 2026.
- Subsequent scheduling order setting Lively's evidentiary submission deadline (June 29, 2026) and the Wayfarer parties' response deadline (July 13, 2026).
- Reuters — Legal news coverage reporting that the fee amount had not yet been determined.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Settled (May 7, 2026) · Fees granted, amount pending
Case Title
Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, et al.
Court
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Fee Ruling
June 12, 2026 (Judge Lewis J. Liman)
Next Deadline
Lively's fee request due June 29, 2026; response July 13, 2026
