Blake Lively’s representatives have firmly rejected extortion allegations made against her by Justin Baldoni’s former agent amidst their ongoing legal conflict involving the 2024 film It Ends With Us. As the dispute unfolds, Lively’s team insists that recent assertions by Danny Greenberg, Baldoni’s ex-agent, do not reflect the reality of her involvement in the project.
Response to Extortion Allegations in the Legal Battle
The accusation arose during a deposition where Greenberg used the term “extortion” to describe what he portrayed as Lively’s attempts to influence or control elements of the film. However, Lively’s spokesperson dismissed this characterization as inaccurate and misleading. Addressing the claim, her representative stated,
“The court already dismissed their so-called ‘taking over a movie’ claim, and this cherry-picked deposition quote from Baldoni’s prior agent before he was dropped from WME adds nothing new,”
highlighting that even the court’s earlier dismissal of the claim was done while assuming the allegations to be true, yet still found them legally insufficient.
The representative further clarified the nature of Lively’s legal dispute, emphasizing it is a serious lawsuit—not sensationalized drama.
“This is just a recycled distraction,”
they noted,
“that has nothing to do with the actual sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit Baldoni and the Wayfarer Defendants are facing.”
This underlines the focus of the legal fight on deeper workplace misconduct claims rather than offhanded accusations.
Background of the Legal Disputes Between Lively and Baldoni
The lawsuit environment intensified in December after Blake Lively publicly accused Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, of sexual harassment and retaliation related to their work on the Colleen Hoover adaptation It Ends With Us. She filed a California Civil Rights Department complaint alleging unprofessional and inappropriate behavior from Baldoni and Wayfarer executives, describing the actions as
“invasive, unwelcome, unprofessional and sexually inappropriate.”
Baldoni responded swiftly with counterclaims, suing Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and publicist Leslie Sloane, alongside filing a defamation case against The New York Times following their exposé on the alleged smear campaign against Lively. Despite these filings, many of the lawsuits related to this dispute have been dismissed by court order.
A status hearing is scheduled for October 26, with a formal trial set to begin in March 2026, marking continued legal proceedings that remain under close public and media scrutiny.
Filing of California Civil Rights Department Complaint and Retaliation Allegations
On December 20, 2024, four months after It Ends With Us premiered, Lively lodged a formal complaint with the California Civil Rights Department. In this complaint, she named Baldoni, his company Wayfarer Studios, and multiple associates, alleging a coordinated campaign to retaliate against her following her complaints about Baldoni’s misconduct on set. The suit claimed these actions caused “substantial harm” affecting both her personal and professional life.
The complaint outlined a range of allegations against the defendants, including sexual harassment, retaliation, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. It accused the defendants of failing to adequately investigate or prevent misconduct and facilitating harassment and retaliation through improper actions.
Media Coverage and Details of the Smear Campaign
The day following the CRD complaint, The New York Times published an article detailing the alleged smear campaign against Lively, drawing upon her legal filings. The article included messages between Baldoni, his publicist Jennifer Abel, and crisis communication specialist Melissa Nathan, which were referenced in the complaint as part of a calculated effort to damage Lively’s reputation.
Responding to the report, Lively said,
“I hope that my legal action helps pull back the curtain on these sinister retaliatory tactics to harm people who speak up about misconduct, and helps protect others who may be targeted.”
Baldoni and Wayfarer’s Legal Defense and Talent Agency Fallout
After the complaint’s public emergence, Baldoni’s legal team, led by attorney Bryan Freedman, strongly refuted the allegations. Freedman condemned Lively’s accusations as “serious and categorically false,” accusing her of attempting to repair her reputation through these claims. He asserted that Wayfarer Studios took no retaliatory action but only engaged in routine crisis management and responsive media monitoring.
Shortly after the complaint and media release, Baldoni experienced significant professional repercussions when his talent agency, William Morris Endeavor (WME), severed ties with him. The agency dismissed rumors that Ryan Reynolds exerted pressure to drop Baldoni, clarifying that no such influence occurred.
Support from Cast and Industry Figures
Following Lively’s public allegations, several colleagues and industry figures voiced support. Colleen Hoover, author of It Ends With Us, praised Lively’s honesty and character on social media. Actress Jenny Slate, who worked alongside Baldoni, expressed solidarity, calling Lively a “leader” and commending her bravery. Other co-stars, including Brandon Sklenar and members of the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants cast such as America Ferrera, Alexis Bledel, and Amber Tamblyn, also publicly backed Lively.
Significant Departures and New Lawsuits Amid the Conflict
The discord surrounding the legal battles extended to other projects, including The Man Enough Podcast, which Baldoni co-hosted with Jamey Heath and Liz Plank. In late December, Plank announced her departure from the podcast, thanking listeners and hinting at ongoing reflection on recent events. Though she did not directly state reasons for leaving, the timing coincided with intensified legal turmoil.
Meanwhile, Baldoni’s former publicist, Stephanie Jones, filed a lawsuit against him, related associates, and crisis management professionals Jennifer Abel and Melissa Nathan. Jones alleged they orchestrated attacks against her and her agency, Jonesworks LLC, including a media smear involving Lively’s legal team. The suit accused Abel and Nathan of breaching contracts and defaming Jones within the industry, with Wayfarer denying the contractual obligations claimed by Jones.
Escalating Litigation Involving The New York Times
On December 31, 2024, Baldoni and Wayfarer, along with associated defendants, filed a $250 million lawsuit against The New York Times, disputing its reporting on the alleged smear campaign. They accused the newspaper of libel, invasion of privacy, and contractual breaches, claiming the coverage was biased and selectively edited based on Lively’s complaint. The defendants asserted that it was Lively’s side that orchestrated a smear campaign, an accusation she denies.
In response, The New York Times defended the rigor of its reporting, stating,
“The role of an independent news organization is to follow the facts where they lead… Our story was meticulously and responsibly reported.”
The ongoing legal entanglement indicates the high stakes involved for all parties in this dispute.
Further Lawsuits Filed Between the Parties
Significantly, Lively also filed a separate federal lawsuit on December 31, naming Baldoni, Wayfarer, and others and outlining allegations including sexual harassment, retaliation, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Her attorneys stressed that this filing reinforced the claims from her earlier CRD complaint.
Baldoni’s legal team responded by reaffirming their intent to pursue further legal action against Lively and others involved.
“There are other bad actors involved, and make no mistake—this will not be the last lawsuit,”
the filings warned.
Continued Public and Legal Backlash in Early 2025
The conflict remained intensely public with ongoing media speculation, including unfounded claims that Ryan Reynolds mocked Baldoni in his film Deadpool & Wolverine. Freedman, Baldoni’s attorney, denounced such rumors, emphasizing the seriousness of the harassment allegations and condemning any attempts to mock or trivialize them.
Lively’s legal representatives characterized the situation as a textbook example of “DARVO” (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender), accusing Baldoni of attempts to blame Lively for the harassment she reported. They highlighted that Sony Pictures requested Lively oversee their cut of the film, which the studio subsequently distributed with success.
Meanwhile, Baldoni’s side accused Lively’s team of orchestrating media attacks, alleging,
“Consistent with her past behavior Blake Lively used other people to communicate those threats and bully her way to get whatever she wanted.”
Expansion of Defamation Lawsuits and Digital Disclosure
By mid-January 2025, additional lawsuits intensified the dispute. Baldoni, Wayfarer, and their associates filed claims against Lively, Reynolds, publicists, and others for extortion, defamation, and interference with contractual relations, rejecting Lively’s harassment allegations. They accused Lively of collaborating with her team to damage the plaintiffs’ reputations following negative reactions to the film’s marketing efforts.
Lively’s legal counsel dismissed these claims as
“another chapter in the abuser playbook,”
asserting that the evidence would demonstrate the cast’s negative experiences with Baldoni and Wayfarer were widespread. They refuted claims that Lively seized control of the film, emphasizing she acted at Sony’s request and that the film’s success validated her involvement.
Release and Dispute Over Behind-the-Scenes Footage
On January 21, Baldoni’s attorneys released behind-the-scenes footage from It Ends With Us to challenge Lively’s portrayal of his behavior during filming. They claimed the actors behaved professionally and respectfully during a sensitive scene. However, Lively’s team argued the video actually supported her lawsuit, describing moments of discomfort consistent with unwanted advances.
Ongoing Legal Maneuvers: Gag Orders and Evidence Revealed
Shortly after, Lively and Reynolds requested a gag order on Baldoni’s lawyer to prevent potentially improper public statements during the case. Additional confidential materials surfaced, including a 2 a.m. voice memo from Baldoni apologizing for previous interactions, which he sent during production. In it, he expressed admiration for Lively’s creative friends and took responsibility for mistakes made.
The trial date was officially set for March 9, 2026, marking a formal judicial timeline for this complex dispute.
Inclusion of The New York Times in the Amplified Lawsuit
At the end of January, Baldoni amended his lawsuit to include The New York Times in a multibillion-dollar claim, accusing Lively and her team of manipulating the media outlet. The lawsuit alleged the Times cherry-picked and distorted communications to present a false narrative.
Public Relations Strategy and Legal Communications Support
Amid mounting legal challenges, Lively enlisted Nick Shapiro, a former CIA Deputy Chief of Staff with extensive crisis management experience, to advise on communications strategy for her ongoing case. Shapiro’s background, including leadership roles at Visa and Airbnb, highlighted the importance of careful messaging in such high-profile litigation.
The New York Times Seeks Withdrawal From the Litigation
In late February, The New York Times filed a motion to remove itself from the defamation lawsuit, arguing the court should exclude it from the dispute. The newspaper described Baldoni’s claims as “a one-sided tale” and stressed that it did not belong in the litigation. Following this, a federal judge granted a pause on discovery related to the Times while reviewing the motion, signaling judicial recognition of the publication’s constitutional arguments.
Taylor Swift’s Name Dragged Into the Legal Fray
In May, Baldoni’s legal team attempted to subpoena pop star Taylor Swift, alleging that Lively used Swift’s friendship for leverage over the film’s creative process. Swift’s representatives firmly denied any involvement beyond licensing a single song for the soundtrack, labeling the subpoena request as a ploy to generate media attention rather than focus on the case’s facts. Subsequently, Baldoni’s lawyers rescinded the subpoena, ending the matter.
Court Dismisses Baldoni’s Countersuit; Lively Shares Reflection on Legal Challenges
In June, a judge dismissed Baldoni’s countersuit against Lively, Reynolds, Sloane, and The New York Times, finding insufficient evidence to sustain claims of defamation or extortion. Following the dismissal, Lively expressed solidarity for others facing retaliatory lawsuits, stating on Instagram,
“Like so many others, I’ve felt the pain of a retaliatory lawsuit, including the manufactured shame that tries to break us.”
She thanked supporters for their unwavering encouragement.
Baldoni’s attorney responded by labeling Lively’s victory declarations as premature, arguing that the case labels were fabricated and the smear campaign purportedly orchestrated by Lively’s team remained “untraceable” due to lack of proof.
Recent Deposition and Disputes Over Public Narratives
On July 31, Lively participated in a deposition at her legal team’s office. Contrary to media reports about a dramatic, face-to-face confrontation with Baldoni, her attorneys clarified that multiple defendants and their lawyers were present, and rejected claims that Lively required an excessive support team to testify.
Continued Legal Hostilities Point Toward Prolonged Conflict
The dispute between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, alongside their associates and legal teams, has unfolded as a complex series of allegations, counterclaims, and legal maneuvers stretching over many months. The accusations center on serious claims of sexual harassment and retaliation, while the defendants have contested these allegations, labeling them as attempts to seize creative control and manipulate the narrative.
With the trial date set for March 2026 and various court proceedings occurring regularly, this dispute will remain closely observed for its implications on workplace misconduct accountability in Hollywood, legal strategies in high-profile conflicts, and the broader conversation about retaliation and media influence in sensitive cases.
