In a significant development in the legal battle between It Ends With Us co-stars Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, a settlement has been reached, but without any financial compensation exchanged. However, the dispute is far from fully resolved, with key legal motions still pending before the court.
According to multiple reports confirmed by Variety, no money changed hands in the settlement, despite widespread speculation. Addressing the ongoing confidentiality surrounding the agreement, a source close to the matter stated, "Anyone purporting to confirm the terms of the confidential settlement at this point is misleading you. More information about this confidential settlement will be on the court's docket in the coming days," as quoted by Variety.
Earlier this week, Lively agreed to drop her three remaining claims against Wayfarer Studios, the production company co-founded by Baldoni, along with its team of publicists. The move effectively avoids a federal trial that had been scheduled to begin on May 18. Lively had previously alleged that Wayfarer retaliated against her after she accused Baldoni of sexual harassment during the film's production.
Most of Lively's original claims, including all allegations of sexual harassment, were dismissed last month. While the settlement closes one chapter, a crucial legal issue remains unresolved.
As per Variety, Blake Lively continues to pursue a motion seeking attorneys' fees and damages related to Baldoni's defamation lawsuit, which had originally sought USD 400 million in damages. That suit, filed in January 2025 against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and their publicists, alleged that false harassment claims were used to damage Baldoni's reputation and take control of the film. The defamation case was dismissed in June by Judge Lewis Liman, who ruled that Lively's allegations were made within legal filings and were therefore protected.
As per Variety, Lively's legal team had also sought attorneys' fees, treble damages, and punitive damages under the 2023 California law known as the Protecting Survivors from Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act. While the judge declined to rule on the law's applicability at the time, he allowed Lively to renew her motion, which she did in September.
Baldoni's lawyers opposed the motion, calling the requested relief "draconian" and arguing it violated constitutional rights, while also questioning whether California law could apply to actions in New York and New Jersey.
The case has also drawn attention from advocacy groups, including Equal Rights Advocates and the California Employment Lawyers Association, which filed an amicus brief in support of Lively.
As per Variety, the groups argued, "Ms Lively is a public figure, and this lawsuit has captured the attention of the American public. The outcome of this motion will affect the decision-making of other victims of sexual harassment and assault."
