Blake Lively seeks over $160 million in damages in her legal battle with Justin Baldoni

07 November 2025

Justin Baldoni, Blake Lively Nathan Congleton/NBC/Getty Images; TheStewartofNY/WireImage/Getty Images

In an escalating legal showdown, actress Blake Lively has filed a court document seeking in excess of $160 million in damages from director and actor Justin Baldoni and his production company linked to their work together on the film adaptation of It Ends With Us. According to unsealed filings obtained by People, Lively claims she suffered significant financial and reputational harm after reporting alleged misconduct during production, and is now requesting recovery for earnings lost, business profits unrealised, reputational damage and emotional distress.

The breakdown in the filings reveals that Lively is seeking approximately $56 million in lost past and future earnings tied to her acting roles, speaking engagements and producing work; around $71 million in lost profits connected to her business ventures such as her haircare brand, her beverage company and lifestyle enterprises; and roughly $34 million for reputational harm she says resulted from a wave of negative publicity, the documents note. On top of that she is pursuing attorneys’ fees, punitive damages and compensation for emotional distress estimated between $250,000 and $400,000.

This latest filing comes on the heels of Lively’s original lawsuit filed in December 2024 against Baldoni and his Wayfarer Studios, in which she alleged a hostile work environment, sexual harassment, retaliation and a smear campaign after she raised concerns during filming. That suit claims the fallout disrupted her career trajectory and business opportunities. Baldoni denied the allegations and, earlier in the dispute, filed his own defamation and extortion countersuit valued at up to $400 million, which was dismissed by a federal judge.

The unsealed documents also raise the stakes by listing a broad roster of potential witnesses over 100 names are included among them major celebrities such as Taylor Swift, Emily Blunt, Gigi Hadid and Hugh Jackman. While some legal commentators say the listing of big names is common in large discovery documents and does not guarantee testimony, the inclusion amplifies public attention on the case.

For Lively, the move signals a moment of resolve. She issued a statement when Baldoni’s countersuit was dismissed, expressing that she felt vindicated and emphasised her commitment to speak out for what she described as women’s rights in the workplace. The timing of her damages claim suggests her legal team is building a case not merely about alleged misconduct but about the long-term professional and commercial fallout she says followed the production in question.

For Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios the documents represent a renewed front in what has already become one of the more high-profile legal battles in recent entertainment industry memory. The trial is set to begin in March 2026 in the Southern District of New York, and so the latest filings help set the narrative for both sides ahead of court.

From a broader perspective the case touches on the intersection of celebrity, power dynamics on film sets, and the business implications of reputational harm in entertainment. Lively’s claims reach beyond the standard harassment narrative by quantifying lost business profits and brand valuations, reflecting how modern celebrity careers span multiple arenas beyond acting and how disruption in one area can cascade across a portfolio of earnings. At the same time the case highlights how production disputes, when made public, can quickly become reputational and financial minefields for those involved.

Observers will watch closely not just for the outcome in court but for how the industry reacts to the implications. Should Lively succeed in proving her allegations and securing the requested damages, it may signal to studios, production companies and talent that the cost of alleged workplace misconduct now or in the past may carry broader exposure not just in settlements but in visible financial claims. For actors and creatives the case may serve as a benchmark in how non-acting business ventures, endorsements and personal brands can be impacted by issues surfaced on set and in post-production.

Whether the $160 million plus figure becomes a settlement number, a judgement, or a negotiating tool remains to be seen. But for now the filing itself sends a message: this is not simply a dispute between two industry figures, but a calculated legal move with potential ripple effects across how entertainment labour, reputational risk and brand-adjacency are managed. And for Blak Lively the pursuit of damages may mark the next chapter of how she defines her career beyond performance, focusing as much on business resilience and control over her public identity as on her roles in front of the camera.