Blake Lively is stepping back into the spotlight.
The It Ends With Us alum made a rare public appearance on Sunday, July 19, when she attended the 2026 FIFA World Cup final at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. The outing comes after her highly publicized legal dispute tied to Justin Baldoni appeared to reach a major turning point.
Lively, 38, shared highlights from the event on Instagram, posting a cheerful group selfie from the packed stadium as she watched the championship match alongside three friends. Smiling for the camera, the actress looked relaxed as the electric World Cup atmosphere filled the background.
Blake Lively made a rare public appearance at the 2026 FIFA World Cup final in New Jersey.@blakelively/Instagram
For the big game, Lively kept her look effortlessly stylish. She wore a white tank top under a blue-and-white striped cardigan, pairing the outfit with light-wash jeans and oversized sunglasses. Layered turquoise necklaces and a crossbody bag completed her casual yet polished game-day ensemble.
Baldoni Challenges Lively’s Fee Request
Justin Baldoni is challenging Blake Lively’s request for more than $8 million in attorneys’ fees and litigation costs.MEGA
While Lively enjoyed a day out, the legal battle surrounding It Ends With Us continues over attorneys’ fees.
According to a July 13 court filing, Baldoni, 42, and Wayfarer Studios asked Judge Lewis Liman to reject or “substantially reduce” Lively’s request for more than $8 million in attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. They argued that her legal team billed “excessive” hourly rates and assigned too many attorneys to the case.
Lively is seeking $7,495,526.87 in attorneys’ fees, along with $539,514.01 in litigation costs and expenses, after the court dismissed Baldoni’s defamation-related claims against her.
The filing argued that Lively’s request is “anything but a typical fee motion.”
Attorneys Weigh In
Blake Lively is seeking nearly $7.5 million in legal fees and more than $539,000 in litigation expenses.MEGA
Baldoni’s legal team compared the request to a separate lawsuit involving The New York Times, noting that the newspaper sought $181,622.70 in attorneys’ fees after successfully getting what they described as “precisely the same defamation claim” dismissed.
Baldoni had previously filed a $250 million lawsuit against The New York Times over its reporting that he and his public relations team allegedly conducted a “smear campaign” against Lively. That lawsuit was later dismissed.
A source close to Lively told People there were significant differences between the two cases, including the fact that the newspaper’s lawsuit did not involve an extensive discovery process before it was dismissed.
‘It’s All About the Reasonableness’
Legal experts said judges have broad discretion to determine whether requested attorneys’ fees are reasonable.@justinbaldoni/Instagram
Baldoni’s filing also claims Lively’s attorneys billed 7,070.20 hours across 82 timekeepers, alleging there were “multiple lawyers at the same hearings” and “numerous charges for lawyers conferencing, conferring or strategizing with one another.”
“It’s all about the ‘reasonableness’ of the fee requests, measured as a function of time spent and hourly rate,” explained attorney, author and law instructor Danny Karon, who is not involved in the case. “Some judges cap hourly rates; others scrutinize time spent. Some do both, and some do neither.”
Karon added that parties sometimes hire experts to review legal fee requests, though doing so can create another costly layer in the dispute.
“Lawyers seeking fees pull out all the stops, as getting paid is essential to staying in business, just as it is for anyone else,” he said.
‘Reduce the Award’
Tisha Morris, founder of Legacy Arts Law, who is also not involved in the case, explained why VIP lawsuits usually involve a lot of professionals.
“Celebrity litigation often requires larger legal teams because of expedited motion practice, extensive discovery, crisis management, and the reputational consequences surrounding the case,” she said.
“If the court concludes there was overstaffing, excessive conferencing among attorneys, or billing rates that exceed what the market reasonably supports, it has broad discretion to reduce the award,” she added.
Read more at OK!
Get OK!’s biggest scoops and scandals delivered right to your inbox. Sign up now.
FOLLOW OK! ON WHATSAPP HERE: Stay across all the latest in celebrity, entertainment, and pop culture via our WhatsApp channel. No comments, no algorithm and nobody can see your private details.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.aol.com ’
