Judge Dismisses Lawsuit
In a significant legal decision that brings to a close a months-long public controversy, a federal judge has dismissed actor and filmmaker Justin Baldoni’s defamation and retaliation lawsuit against actress Blake Lively. Baldoni, known for his roles in Jane the Virgin and Five Feet Apart, had accused Lively and her husband, actor Ryan Reynolds, of conspiring to destroy his reputation through what he described as false allegations of sexual harassment and workplace retaliation.
The Allegations
Baldoni filed the suit in January 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that Lively had privately submitted a letter to executives at a major streaming platform in late 2024 accusing him of inappropriate behavior on the set of a project the two were developing. According to Baldoni, Lively’s letter — which was not made public — characterized his conduct as “sexually aggressive” and described an allegedly hostile work environment created by his leadership style.
The lawsuit further alleged that Ryan Reynolds, while not the author of the letter, engaged in a “coordinated whisper campaign” to reinforce the accusations, privately warning other actors and producers against working with Baldoni. As a result, Baldoni claimed, he lost multiple opportunities, including a directorial deal with a major studio and a speaking engagement at a corporate diversity summit.
In his complaint, Baldoni stated that the accusations were “knowingly false and motivated by personal animus,” and described the alleged effort as a “calculated character assassination.” He sought unspecified damages for defamation, tortious interference with contractual relations, and emotional distress.
The Court’s Ruling
Judge Carla Espinosa issued a 27-page ruling on Monday, dismissing all of Baldoni’s claims with prejudice — meaning they cannot be refiled. The decision rested on several key legal findings, most notably that Lively’s communication to the streaming platform was protected under California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute, which shields individuals from legal liability for statements made in connection with matters of public interest.
“The statements at issue were made in a confidential and privileged context,” Judge Espinosa wrote. “There is no plausible basis to conclude that they were made with actual malice, nor does the plaintiff establish a direct causal link between the defendants’ actions and the alleged harm.”
Judge Espinosa also ruled that Reynolds’s alleged involvement did not rise to the level of defamation or tortious interference, stating that “generalized claims of reputational damage within a competitive industry do not, on their own, satisfy the burden of proof required.”
Reaction From the Parties
Lively’s legal team hailed the decision as a sweeping victory.
“This ruling represents a complete vindication of Ms. Lively and a firm rebuke of a meritless and retaliatory lawsuit,” said Marissa Klein, Lively’s lead attorney. “Blake Lively exercised her right to speak out about behavior she found concerning, and she did so appropriately, in a private and protected setting. The court has confirmed that the legal system will not be used to silence or punish those who raise such concerns in good faith.”
While Reynolds was not named as a primary defendant, his publicist issued a brief statement following the ruling: “Ryan has always stood by his wife and believes in her integrity. We are pleased the court recognized the baseless nature of this claim.”
Baldoni’s legal team responded with a sharply worded statement expressing disappointment.
“We respectfully but strongly disagree with the court’s ruling,” said attorney David Marks. “Mr. Baldoni brought this action in pursuit of the truth and accountability. We believe the legal system failed to adequately address the reputational harm and personal trauma he has endured. We are currently reviewing all available avenues for appeal.”
Industry Implications
Though the court did not rule on the truth or falsity of the original allegations, the case has drawn widespread attention in Hollywood and beyond, raising complex questions about private reporting mechanisms, informal blacklisting, and the delicate balance between accountability and defamation.
Advocacy organizations have weighed in on both sides. Women in Media issued a statement praising the ruling as a victory for people who report misconduct: “Confidential disclosures should not be weaponized against survivors or whistleblowers,” the group said. Meanwhile, the Artists’ Due Process Collective, which supports individuals accused of misconduct, said the ruling underscored the need for “clearer industry standards to prevent reputational destruction without public evidence or process.”
Lively, Reynolds, and Baldoni have all refrained from making direct public statements on social media since the decision was issued.
What’s Next
While the legal case appears settled for now, Baldoni’s team has left the door open for an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which would involve months of additional litigation. Legal experts say the likelihood of success on appeal is slim, given the strong protections afforded to private speech under both California law and the First Amendment.
“This was always a tough case for Baldoni to win,” said constitutional law professor Dina Amador of UCLA. “The courts are very wary of chilling speech, especially when it comes to private reports of workplace behavior — even when reputations are on the line.”
For now, the dismissal stands as a high-profile affirmation of legal protections for those who speak out, even in private settings, and a cautionary tale for public figures who seek redress through the courts for alleged reputational damage.
