Justin Baldoni‘s attorney, Bryan Freedman, is speaking out after a judge ruled Blake Lively is entitled to legal fees.
“We fought and won against a coordinated effort built on allegations of sexual harassment, retaliation and a smear campaign that never happened,” Freedman said in a statement to Us Weekly on Friday, June 12. “Ms. Lively demanded over $300 million in fees and damages, had 10 of her 13 claims dismissed, she then chose to settle and received nothing.”
Freedman continued, “Notwithstanding that all of her sexual harassment and defamation claims were thrown out by the court, Ms. Lively then pivoted to exploit a California law that was established to protect real victims in what proved to be a fruitless mission to obtain damages. Once again, she failed.”
According to court documents obtained by Us, Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled that Lively, 38, was entitled to recover her defense costs under a 2023 California law meant to protect sexual abuse accusers from retaliatory defamation suits.
Justin Baldoni’s Lawyer Brands Blake Lively’s Request for Damages ‘Nonsense’ After Settling Lawsuit
Her request for punitive damages, however, was denied.
“Ms. Lively was only awarded limited attorney fees for a single claim as part of a case that lasted only a matter of months, nothing more,” Freedman shared. “Throughout this process, innocent people had their reputations unfairly tarnished. There was no sexual harassment. There was no retaliation. There was no smear campaign. The court recognized it, the record reflects it and we have maintained it from the very beginning. We would not hesitate to stand up for the truth again.”
In response to Liman’s latest ruling in New York, Lively’s attorneys explained what the ruling meant to their client.
“Today’s ruling makes it clear that Ms. Lively brought her claims in good faith, that there was no evidence she acted with malice and that she is the prevailing defendant under Section 47.1,” attorneys Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb shared in a statement to Us.“The Court is awarding Ms. Lively attorneys’ fees and costs and has explained that a prevailing defendant under Section 47.1 may seek damages using different procedural mechanisms. The parties’ settlement agreement expressly preserves Ms. Lively’s rights to obtain those damages. Ms. Lively is gratified that her lawsuit shows how Section 47.1 and laws like it create a path for survivors to hold accountable those who weaponize online attacks and retaliatory lawsuits to intimidate and silence survivors.”
Blake Lively, Justin Baldoni Nicole Rivelli / Sony Pictures Releasing /Courtesy Everett Collection
Lively and Baldoni’s legal drama began in December 2024, when the actress accused her It Ends With Us costar and director of sexual harassment, creating a hostile work environment and purposefully creating a smear campaign targeting the actress.
Baldoni, 42, strongly denied the allegations throughout the legal battle and countersued Lively. A judge ultimately dismissed his lawsuit in June 2025.
In April, Lively experienced her own legal setback when a judge ruled that most of the Gossip Girl alum’s legal claims against Baldoni would be dismissed.
Blake Lively vs. Justin Baldoni’s ‘It Ends With Us’ Lawsuit: Case Updates and Complete Timeline
Nearly two weeks before Lively and Baldoni were set to begin trial, the pair reached a private settlement.
“The end product — the movie It Ends With Us — is a source of pride to all of us who worked to bring it to life. Raising awareness, and making a meaningful impact in the lives of domestic violence survivors — and all survivors — is a goal that we stand behind,” attorneys for both parties said in a statement to Us on May 4. “We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard.”
The statement continued, “We remain firmly committed to workplaces free of improprieties and unproductive environments. It is our sincere hope that this brings closure and allows all involved to move forward constructively and in peace, including a respectful environment online.”
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.aol.com ’
