Baldoni's Team Claims Victory as Lively Case Settles: Who Really Won?

When a legal battle stretches across months, involves Hollywood A-listers, and ends in a settlement just before trial, declaring victory becomes an art form. That’s exactly what happened in the Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively dispute, where both sides are now spinning the outcome like they came out on top.

On June 12, Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman issued a statement that reads like a victory lap. He emphasized that Lively’s original allegations of sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and smear campaign had been substantially dismantled in court—ten of her thirteen claims were dismissed in April. Freedman underscored that she’d demanded over $300 million in fees and damages, settled for nothing, and that Judge Lewis J. Liman ultimately ruled that the sexual harassment and defamation claims had no merit.

But here’s where it gets complicated. The same Judge Liman ruled that Lively was entitled to recover her defense costs under a 2023 California law specifically designed to protect sexual abuse accusers from retaliatory defamation suits. Her request for punitive damages was denied, but the fact that she secured any attorney fees under Section 47.1 matters—it signals the court recognized her claims were brought in good faith and without malice.

Lively’s attorneys, Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb, framed the ruling as validation. They highlighted that the court’s decision proves she acted in good faith, that she’s a prevailing defendant under Section 47.1, and that the settlement agreement explicitly preserves her right to pursue damages through other procedural mechanisms. In their telling, this case becomes a roadmap for survivors to hold accountable those who weaponize online attacks and legal maneuvers to silence them.

The whole saga began in December 2024 when Lively accused her It Ends With Us costar and director of misconduct on set. Baldoni countersued; his lawsuit was dismissed in June 2025. They were set to face off in court in May 2026 before reaching a private settlement just two weeks before trial.

What’s instructive here isn’t who“won”—it’s what this case reveals about the gap between legal technicalities and broader cultural narratives. One side celebrates the dismissal of claims; the other celebrates the vindication of good faith and the preservation of future remedies. Both can’t be fully right, and both can’t be fully wrong. That ambiguity is precisely why these cases settle.