Blake Lively Wins Legal Fees, Loses Damage Bid Against Justin Baldoni

In a partial victory that’s less checkmate and more of a strategic stalemate, Blake Lively won’t be walking away with damages from Justin Baldoni—but he’s definitely footing her legal bill. A Manhattan federal court judge ruled on June 12, 2026, that while Blake’s request for punitive and treble damages didn’t stick, Justin and Wayfarer are still on the hook to cover her attorney’s fees. The exact amount remains undetermined, but one thing’s clear: this legal chess match just moved another square forward.

The decision stems from a June 1 hearing where Blake’s legal team pushed hard, arguing that Justin’s defamation lawsuit against her—the one that got tossed out—was exactly the kind of retaliatory legal action California law exists to stop. They wanted damages to match. Justin’s camp fired back, claiming Blake was trying to resurrect a battle that had already been settled back in May. The court, it seems, split the baby: no windfall damages for Blake, but Justin still pays for the privilege of taking her to court.

Here’s the backstory that matters: this whole thing erupted over Blake’s allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation during the making of“It Ends With Us.”Justin denied everything and countersued Blake, Ryan Reynolds, and others—a lawsuit that ultimately got dismissed. The two sides settled the broader dispute in May, but the fight over who pays for what kept both teams in court. It’s the kind of post-settlement scorekeeping that happens when two sides can’t quite let go.

The court wasn’t fully convinced by Blake’s argument for additional punitive damages, but they did agree that she shouldn’t be left holding the bag on legal costs after defending herself against a lawsuit that didn’t have legs. It’s a modest win in what’s been an exhausting legal saga for everyone involved. And while neither side is exactly dancing in the streets, Blake’s getting reimbursed for the cost of her defense—even if the jackpot damages stayed locked away.

What’s interesting here is how this plays out beyond Hollywood drama. California’s anti-SLAPP laws (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) are designed to protect people from retaliatory lawsuits that aim to silence them. Blake’s team leaned hard on that argument. The court didn’t go all the way with them on damages, but the legal fees ruling suggests they at least acknowledged the principle at stake. For anyone watching these celebrity legal wars play out, this says something about what courts are willing to do to discourage frivolous litigation—even when both parties have deep pockets and can weather the costs.