March 24, 2025 – The legal battle between It Ends With Us co-stars Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni has taken a new turn as Lively’s invocation of California’s Sexual Harassment Privilege comes under intense scrutiny. In a detailed thread on X, user Leanne Newton (@kiarajade2001) analyzed Lively’s motion to dismiss Baldoni’s $400 million defamation countersuit, focusing on the critical issue of “actual malice” and whether Lively’s allegations of sexual harassment were made in good faith. The post, shared on March 24, 2025, delves into the legal definitions and evidence that could determine the outcome of this high-stakes Hollywood dispute.
12. To assert the Sexual Harassment Privilege, Blake Lively needs to have complained of sexual harassment in ‘good faith’. I covered the definition of good faith, and why she did not meet this requirement in post 11 of this thread.
She also has to have made the statement… pic.twitter.com/DOt1a8g4ph
— Leanne Newton (@kiarajade2001) March 24, 2025
Lively, who filed her initial lawsuit against Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation during the filming of It Ends With Us, is now seeking to dismiss Baldoni’s countersuit under California’s Assembly Bill 933. This 2023 law protects individuals who report sexual misconduct from defamation claims unless they acted with actual malice—defined under Cal. Civ. Code § 48a(d) as a state of mind arising from “hatred or ill will” toward the plaintiff, absent a good faith belief in the truth of the statements. Lively’s motion argues that her allegations are privileged and that Baldoni’s countersuit is a retaliatory attempt to silence her.
Newton’s analysis, however, questions whether Lively meets the criteria for this privilege. Citing the case of Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union (1984), Newton notes that actual malice requires proof that Lively either knew her statements were false or had serious doubts about their truthfulness. Newton references her earlier posts, where she argued that Lively’s allegations—such as claims of inappropriate behavior during filming, including improvised kissing and comments about her appearance—were either disproven or reframed in a way that suggests Lively may have knowingly misrepresented the facts.
Newton lists several actions by Lively that could demonstrate “hatred or ill will” toward Baldoni, potentially supporting a finding of actual malice. These include Lively’s alleged takeover of the film, the removal of Baldoni’s “A film by” credit, leveraging Taylor Swift’s song to pressure Baldoni, and segregating him from the cast during the premiere. Newton also points to Lively’s influence on the Deadpool and Wolverine film, specifically the Nicepool character, which Lively claimed credit for on Instagram, as a possible act of harassment. Additionally, Lively’s refusal to allow Baldoni to attend the premiere under fair conditions and her alleged use of his book quotes to draft a statement for Wayfarer to take responsibility are cited as evidence of ill intent.
The outcome of this legal battle hinges on discovery, particularly communications involving Sony, which may reveal whether Lively used her allegations as leverage for extortion, as Baldoni claims. If Baldoni can prove actual malice, Lively’s privilege claim could collapse, leaving her vulnerable to his defamation suit. As this Hollywood drama unfolds, the case continues to highlight the complexities of sexual harassment allegations in the entertainment industry and the legal protections surrounding them.
