Internet commentary has resurfaced over the last few weeks involving new revelations in the ongoing scandal between “It Ends with Us” co-stars Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni. The highly anticipated film released in August 2024 was an adaptation of the popular book written by Colleen Hoover that portrayed domestic violence in relationships. Lively and Baldoni played the two lead roles in the film, with Baldoni playing the part of Lively’s abuser.
When the film took to the red carpet for its promotional run just before its release, people began discussing Baldoni’s isolation from the rest of the cast. Baldoni did not participate in interviews with the rest of his co-stars, unfollowed many of them on social media, and rarely accompanied the cast on the red carpet. Fans began theorizing about dynamics between Lively and Baldoni behind the scenes, which led to an online narrative accusing Lively of insensitivity and controlling “mean girl” behavior. Rumors swirled. However, the actual narrative remained private for some time.
On December 20, 2024, those following the drama began to get some answers. That day, Lively filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department against Baldoni, the film’s production company (Wayfarer Studios), Wayfarer CEO Jamey Heath, and PR experts hired by both men. The complaint accused Baldoni of sexual harassment during filming, retaliation against Lively after she raised concerns about his on-set behavior, and alleged that Baldoni hired a crisis publicity firm to create and spread a “social manipulation campaign” to smear Lively’s reputation while the two were promoting the film. After Baldoni answered the complaint, Lively sued Baldoni directly in the State of New York, alleging that Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios, and others engaged in “a carefully crafted, coordinated, and resourced retaliatory scheme to silence her, and others, from speaking out.”
On January 16, 2025, Baldoni filed a second suit against Lively to which Lively answered by accusing Baldoni’s team of utilizing a tactic associated with perpetrators of abuse called DARVO—“Deny. Attack. Reverse Victim and Offender.”
Following the release of a story detailing Lively’s complaint, Baldoni sued the New York Times on December 31, 2024, for libel. The suit accused the publication of relying almost entirely on Lively’s depiction of the story and lacking any evidence that contradicted her allegations. For libel claims, the threshold is higher for public figures like Baldoni. To be successful in a libel claim, Baldoni must show that the Times both published false information and had actual malice, meaning the publisher knew the information was false or had a reckless disregard for the truth.
Further, in California where the libel suit was filed, the “fair report privilege” protects the media from libel suits as long as the publication is accurate and reports official proceedings. In response, the Times stated that the story was “meticulously and responsibly reported” and that it plans to defend the suit vigorously. The article was based on Lively’s complaint to the California Civil Rights Department, which constitutes official proceedings.
According to Baldoni’s suit, the Times falsely alleged Baldoni participated in a smear campaign against Lively, cherry-picked messages, and even omitted important contextual elements such as an emoji that suggested sarcasm. Baldoni alleges the Times portrayal was “false, incomplete, misleading, and highly inflammatory.” The suit also claims the Times published the article two hours before the deadline promised to Baldoni and his team for an opportunity to comment. In response, the Times stated that Baldoni and his team chose not to dispel any of the allegations and instead, provided a statement which the Times printed.
On January 16, 2025, Baldoni and the company he co-founded, Wayfarer Studios, sued Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and the couple’s publicist, Leslie Sloane. The suit alleges civil extortion, defamation, and several contractual-related claims such as intentional interference with contractual relations and interference with prospective economic advantage. The 179-page complaint demands $400,000,000 in damages for hijacking Wayfarer’s premiere and destroying Baldoni’s reputation and livelihood.
Baldoni alleges that Lively and Reynolds used their fame and power to take over the movie, making creative choices, wardrobe decisions, rewriting scenes, and editing the final cut of the film. The complaint alleges that Lively excluded Baldoni from promoting the movie and attempted to ban him from the film’s premiere. After threatening a boycott, the complaint further alleges that Baldoni was only able to attend the premiere “under humiliating conditions”: watching the premiere from the basement of the event. Despite not being hired to work on the film, Reynolds became involved creatively, causing conflicts among production and allegedly berating Baldoni in front of the cast and crew by calling Baldoni a “sexual predator.”
In addition, Baldoni’s suit denies that Baldoni or Wayfarer CEO Heath committed sexual harassment or any other inappropriate behavior towards Lively or the other cast members. Bryan Freedman, Baldoni’s legal counsel, has spoken out to the public several times claiming that they have nothing to hide. Baldoni’s legal team created a website containing correspondences and relevant videos aiming to provide the public with evidence that dispels Blake Lively’s claims.
Whether Baldoni’s suit against the New York Times is successful or not, this suit may assist Baldoni’s legal team in the suit against Lively, as the facts of each case have a shared origin. The outcomes of these cases have the power to cause major shifts in the entertainment industry. The cases also are likely to serve as massive discussion points in the ongoing cultural discussion of the treatment of women in the workplace and by the public at large.
The first major shift in the entertainment industry is the requirement for intimacy coordinators on every set that involves “simulated sex acts, nudity, or vulnerable scenes.” Within the past five years, on-set intimacy coordinators have become more and more common on movie and television sets. This movement has been praised by several actors as a source of safety during scenes that are uncomfortable at best, and downright scary at worst. However, the current rule under the latest Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) contract only states that “productions must make a good-faith effort to hire intimacy coordinators when necessary.” Future versions of this contract are sure to strengthen this requirement, as technically speaking, it is not yet a necessity to have an intimacy coordinator on set. Whether Lively or Baldoni prevail or settle any of their cases, this dispute, especially regarding the sexual harassment claims from Lively, has highlighted a need for further protections on set, both for the actor’s safety and the studio’s legal protection.
In addition to a required intimacy coordinator, the entertainment industry may begin to lean away from improvised scenes when those scenes have the potential to become intimate. Many major blockbusters are known and praised for improvised scenes; The Marvel Cinematic Universe stands as one of the most widely discussed franchises in terms of improvisation from actors on set. Several popular television shows also are acclaimed for the actors’ ability to improvise. The Office and New Girl have a plethora of compilation videos dedicated to improvised scenes. The concern lies when scenes take a turn toward intimacy when at least one of the actors may not expect it. This situation is apparent considering the controversial footage circulating of Lively and Baldoni improvising a slow dance scene. Whether this practice continues may become dependent on the availability of an intimacy coordinator.
Finally, these cases have raised concerns of feminist movements, regarding the treatment of women in the workplace and by the public. Lively’s own legal team addressed the potential for “profound consequences…for women who are sexually harassed in the workplace” in a letter asking the judge to restrict Baldoni’s team from making extrajudicial statements. Commentators Nicole Bedera and Leora Tanenbaum, both known for authoring books with themes of feminism and gender biases in the workplace, have spoken of the damaging effect this case will have on women in similar situations as those alleged by Lively. Tanenbaum also voices concern of the impact that the virality of the case will have, with many people online “delegitimizing Lively.” Women experiencing workplace harassment may become even more hesitant to come forward as Baldoni’s alleged retaliation is normalized and even idolized online.
On the flip side, many right-wing influencers have been vocal in their support of Baldoni. He has received vocal support from Brett Cooper, Candace Owens, and Sage Steele. His allegations of being the target of false claims against him and his subsequent cancellation serve to unite many of his supporters.
Similar to the Depp v. Heard case, Lively v. Baldoni will continue to be the source of debate on the treatment of women in America, cancel culture, and the prevalence of false accusations of sexual harassment long after the case is over.
*The views expressed in this article do not represent the views of Santa Clara University.
Comments