Judge tosses Justin Baldoni's lawsuit against Blake Lively and New York Times
The case stemmed from a December 2024 New York Times article detailing sexual harassment allegations that Lively made against Baldoni during production of the romantic drama, based on a formal complaint she filed with California's Civil Rights Department. Baldoni and Wayfarer alleged that the article — and Lively's broader conduct — were part of a retaliatory campaign to seize creative control of the film, exclude Baldoni from publicity efforts and harm his reputation.
U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman rejected those theories in full, granting the motion to dismiss both the $400 million countersuit against Lively, Reynolds and others and the $250 million defamation claim against the Times.
'The motions to dismiss are granted,' Liman wrote in a 132-page opinion, which also denied — for now — requests from Lively's team for attorneys' fees and sanctions under anti-SLAPP statutes in New York and California.
In a statement, Lively's attorneys Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb called the ruling a decisive legal victory.
'Today's opinion is a total victory and a complete vindication for Blake Lively, along with those that Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties dragged into their retaliatory lawsuit,' they said. 'As we have said from day one, this '$400 million' lawsuit was a sham, and the Court saw right through it. We look forward to the next round, which is seeking attorneys' fees, treble damages and punitive damages against Baldoni, Sarowitz, Nathan, and the other Wayfarer Parties who perpetrated this abusive litigation.'
Baldoni and Wayfarer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In her complaint, Lively accused Baldoni of inappropriate physical and verbal conduct, including improvised scenes of intimacy and unsolicited comments about her appearance — allegations Baldoni strongly denied. The Times article recounted those claims, which Baldoni and Wayfarer argued were false and defamatory.
In his decision, Liman found the article was protected reporting on a matter of public concern and dismissed all claims against the Times. He also rejected the plaintiffs' claim that a series of pre-publication emails with the paper formed a binding agreement. 'The Wayfarer Parties plead in their complaint that 'the express written words' of the emails 'created an implied-in-fact contract,'' Liman wrote. But he concluded that no such contract existed, adding that the communications did not 'plausibly support an inference that the parties reached a meeting of the minds.'
The court also rejected the notion that Lively's conduct — including her hesitation to promote the film and her insistence on workplace protections — amounted to extortion or breach. 'Even if they turn out to be unneeded, an employee can insist on protections at [the] workplace for sexual harassment without being accused of extortion,' Liman wrote. 'If an employer accedes, it cannot later claim to be a victim of the employee's wrongful threats.'
He added: 'There also is no allegation that Lively had a contractual obligation to promote the film; if not, there is no basis to assume that the value that she conveyed in terms of her willingness to promote represented anything other than a fair trade for the Wayfarer Parties' willingness to use her cut.'
Liman further criticized the sprawl of the plaintiffs' filings — including a 224-page complaint and a 168-page 'timeline' exhibit — calling the latter improper and legally meaningless. While he declined to strike the exhibit from the docket, he said he would simply disregard it.
Liman granted the plaintiffs leave to amend only a narrow part of their case — allegations that Lively interfered with Apple and Sony's promotional arrangements — but dismissed all other claims with prejudice, signaling that he found the broader legal theories fundamentally flawed.
While an appeal remains possible, the ruling delivers a decisive and public defeat for Baldoni and Wayfarer in their attempt to reframe the fallout over the film.
Lively's push to dismiss the lawsuit had drawn support from several advocacy groups, who argue that the case threatens hard-won legal protections for people who speak out about sexual harassment and misconduct. Organizations including Equal Rights Advocates, Child USA and Sanctuary for Families filed amicus briefs in support of Lively's motion, warning that allowing such claims to proceed could deter survivors from coming forward and chill public discourse on workplace abuse.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
35 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Brunettes with greasy roots: I tried Blake Lively's new affordable haircare brand, and I'm obsessed with its dry shampoo
As a new mom, I've struggled to find little moments of self care. The calm of a hot shower has become my favorite reprieve, and I have a few products that help me reset with their transportive aromas. Blake Brown, the beautifully-scented hair care brand I just can't get enough of these days, is one of them. Founded by Blake Lively, Blake Brown is chicly designed and hyper-focused on luxurious scents that you'll want to spritz all over — but as I've consistently used the products, I've learned that the formulas are really, really good, too. "Hair care is deeply personal. It's not just about aesthetics, it's about identity, mood, and how you carry yourself," Lively tells me through an email interview. "I've been lucky enough to learn from some of the best hair stylists, colorists, and artists in the world who use the best products out there — but I noticed a gap. Those products delivered incredible results, but they were rarely clean, they came at luxury price points, and the scents, while nice, weren't ones I'd choose as my signature fragrance." Thus, her years-long journey to creating Blake Brown began. The beginning of Blake Brown Blake Brown joined Lively's brand lineup in August of 2024 (the actor also heads Betty Buzz and Betty Booze). Since then, it's dropped a handful of hair care essentials like the fan-fave Amber Vanille Dry Shampoo and All-In-Wonder Leave-In Potion. "From day one, I partnered with Give Back Beauty because they shared my values and vision for what Blake Brown could be," says Lively of the brand's origins. "They never once compromised on quality or rushed development." The affordable collection ranges from $19 to $25 at Target. "Target felt like the perfect home for Blake Brown because it's where people shop for everyday essentials and little luxuries. I wanted our products to offer the full experience: performance you can feel from the first use, clean formulations, beautiful packaging, and fragrances you'd happily wear as perfume, at a price that makes them an easy addition to your weekly routine." Her reasoning? "Beautiful, quality haircare should not have to be a rare splurge." The Strengthening Duo: Sandalwood Vanille Shampoo and Mask Pros: The mask is better at nourishing and hydrating than a standard shampoo/conditioner combo Cons: It can be difficult scooping out the last of the product due to the unique jar shape I've always rotated between a few shampoo and conditioner duos, not really falling in love with any one brand — but I've been consistently using Blake Brown since it first launched. Uniquely, Lively has entirely left out the conditioner step, instead pairing her shampoo with a decadent mask that amps up your hair's strength and shine. Not only do they both smell divine, but the shampoo creates a sumptuous lather and the mask feels thick and rich, effortlessly coating my strands. The result: damp hair that feels easy to brush through, and air-dried hair that has minimal frizz and a healthy sheen. The Sandalwood Vanille Hair & Body Mist These days, caring for a baby means my fave perfumes have been collecting dust (since fragrance can easily transfer to her delicate skin) — but this Hair & Body Mist has been my newest best kept secret and ultimate mom hack. "Fragrance is at the heart and soul of Blake Brown because for me, fragrance defines my mood," says Lively. "I don't know how to pick a favorite — the fragrances were made to layer beautifully together, and they sure do." The Sandalwood Vanille scent has notes of heated vanilla, sandalwood, and dry, earthy vetiver. It's soft and sensual, yet the aroma's warmth lingers on my strands for hours. Plus, since it's meant to be spritzed on tresses, there aren't any harmful ingredients — like silicones and parabens — that can damage or weigh down your hair. I feel put-together finally having a signature scent again and grateful that my little girl doesn't have to "wear" my perfume. The Blackcurrant Vanille Classic Hairspray The Classic Hairspray is Blake Brown's newest addition to the collection, and it creates a soft-medium hold while being invisible. What's more, the flexible hold allows you to run your fingers through your hair without ever feeling crunchy strands. "We made sure it was as robust as a professional hairspray in hold and performance, while maintaining a softness and brush-ability which is tricky to do," says Lively. "The result is a hairspray that can work as hard as you need, or simply be a soft, finishing touch [with a] signature fragrance." After wearing my hair in a slicked-back bun in New York's heat, I can confirm it kept my flyaways at bay. The Amber Vanille Dry Shampoo While dry shampoo powders and sprays often leave a white cast or gritty texture at my roots, this mist refreshes my hair in between washes, all while being surprisingly lightweight and completely invisible on my dark brunette hair. Immediately, I can see why this product has become a standout for the brand. It has officially replaced the dry shampoos I was using before. It helps renew my look, and importantly, I don't feel like I'm overloading my scalp with product. The bottom line Lively may be best known as an actor, but in my opinion, she's firmly planted her stake in the beauty world with Blake Brown. Not only do the elegant scents set her brand apart on the shelves, but the formulas have my hair looking and feeling well-loved. If you're obsessed with luxurious fragrances, this line is worth a try. The Sandalwood Vanille Shampoo & Mask and Dry Shampoo are total must-haves that I use on the regular.
Forbes
3 hours ago
- Forbes
AI Demand-Shaping And The Frictionless Rub Of Solipsistic Efficiency
In 1897, painter Frederic Remington wired New York Journal publisher William Randolph Hearst from Cuba with bad news. There was nothing to see, no war to illustrate. Hearst's infamous reply: 'You furnish the pictures, and I'll furnish the war.' The apocryphal anecdote endures as a cautionary tale of media's power to shape reality to its owners' interests. Broadly speaking, historians agree that the sensationalist reporting of Spanish atrocities in Cuba and the mysterious sinking of the USS Maine, which typified the Yellow Journalism era, contributed to the U.S. decision to enter the Spanish-American War in 1898. Hearst and other publishers, like Joseph Pulitzer, saw circulation spikes from their vivid, lurid, and constant coverage, facilitated by new technologies that brought battlefield color to readers at telegraphic speed. Narrative precedes truth. Sensation succeeds substance. Today, emerging feedback loops echo Hearst's telegram, with campaigns to shape consumer demand through prescriptive analytics and generative AI. These are mostly tolerated when used for dynamic ticket pricing and for brand lore development, less so in propaganda campaigns. But what if the demand were being created before there was a product? In late May the Chicago Sun-Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer published 'Heat Index' a 'best of summer' guide insert with, among other fun tips, book recommendations. Those recommendations included reviews and plot summaries, as might be expected from such a feature. The problem, which readers discovered when they sought out their beach reading, was that some of the books did not exist! Chicago freelancer Marco Buscaglia admitting using AI to create the 'Heat Index' book reviews and to not checking against hallucinations. He was working for King Features Syndicate, a unit of Hearst—yes, that Hearst—which apparently did not fact check the recommendations. Neither did the newspapers that published them. FEATURED | Frase ByForbes™ Unscramble The Anagram To Reveal The Phrase Pinpoint By Linkedin Guess The Category Queens By Linkedin Crown Each Region Crossclimb By Linkedin Unlock A Trivia Ladder Both the Sun-Times and Inquirer have since retracted and apologized for the list, but not before it had circulated widely creating interest, clicks, and even demand for books that no one wrote. Until they did. Since the 'Heat Index' publication, dozens of versions of its fake books have been published and sold through Amazon. The sloppy journalism portends a cost-effective, less-human creative process in the not too distant future; one that speaks to dystopian fears around AI. Here's a modification to the 'Heat Index' story (*only 1 and 5 were added): I call this solipsistic efficiency, a media logic where content generates its own demand, based on individualized tastes, in a closed loop, detached from real authors, real experiences, and external verification. It's not about deception in the traditional sense. It's about removing the inefficiencies of reality to create a perpetual, self-driving consumer experience in which authenticity exists only as a marketing metric. In such a media ecosystem, the uncertainty about what's real becomes a valuable hook. Remember James Frey's A Million Little Pieces? His 'memoir' sold better after being exposed as fabricated. The author admitted as much in a Vanity Fair interview discussing his new book, which (spoiler) he used AI in part to craft. The thrill of maybe-it's-real, maybe-it's-not becomes a form of marketable mystique. We see this across contemporary culture: One of this season's hottest Apple TV+ shows, The Studio, brings viewers inside an uncanny Hollywood featuring actual A-listers playing caricatures of themselves. The show captured 23 Emmy nominations (including five of the six for Guest Actor in a Comedy Series) as well as public fascination for an industry of smoke, mirrors, and greed. The fascination is driven by the tantalizing question: Is that what Hollywood is really like? How real were Martin Scorsese and Ron Howard's performances? In music, French streaming platform Deezer estimates that AI-generated music accounts for 18% of all uploads. This July, The Guardian ran the headline 'An AI-generated band got 1m plays on Spotify.' Where is the line between artistic merit and metadata optimization? It's gotten to the point where The Atlantic's Ian Bogost recently wrote a screed titled 'Nobody Cares If Music Is Real Anymore.' Everyone I've asked says they still do care, provided they know. But if you don't know it's fake, then does it actually matter? For several months the Australian Radio Network featured (without telling listeners at first) an AI DJ named 'Thy' (pronounced 'Tee') across several of its stations. NBC Sports recently unveiled an AI-voiced narrator for NBA games, modeled after Jim Fagan, the deceased, hall of fame voice nostalgically familiar to anyone who watched games in the 1990s. Audacy sports talk radio host James Seltzer (WIP 94.1 FM) characterized the trend as professionally problematic, during a recent on-air broadcast, while acknowledging such tech will be difficult to prevent. AI-driven demand and the opacification of reality are dominating media narratives and perplexing media scholars. This summer, Maggie Harrison Dupré of Futurist reported that 'USA TODAY is publishing automated sports stories that serve as SEO-targeted vehicles for sports gambling ads, toeing ethical lines and blurring the boundaries between sports journalism and the rapidly growing sports betting industry.' The demand to bet on a game may be shaped by AI-generated coverage of it, and with platforms like ESPN, earning from both its news content and its sports book (ESPN BET), such lines are at best questionable. We all know it's here and rapidly advancing, but even experts are perplexed about what to do. 'We can't fight it, and we'd be crazy to try to,' Rowan University Journalism Professor Carl Hausman told me. He stresses the importance of media literacy in education, 'so we don't end up hallucinating ourselves to death.' Last week I attended the 108th Association for Educators in Journalism & Mass Communication (AEJMC), an academic conference for national and international media scholars and practitioners. 'AI' was the talk of our four-day, San Francisco conference, appearing at least 273 times in the 246 page program. Research presentations, panels, working groups, and late night discussions unpacked a range of AI fears and fantasies with many practical and bounded conversations about the future of journalism and how to use AI and generative engine optimization (GMO) to improve curricula. Even its most ardent detractors admit artificial intelligence is increasing efficiency and saving money. From decisions about crop management to gene therapy to real-time translation for financial news wires AI is 'paradigm-shifting technology akin to the internet,' according to Ari Moskowitz, Content Marketing Director at Conviva, a leading platform for real-time performance analytics of apps, streaming platforms, and AI agents. Since the wheel, and probably before it, our human drive to get more with less effort is why we create technology. But for some, the consequences of AI signal a systemic, dehumanizing transformation, where generative systems mimic not just content, but the entire ecosystem: creator, reviewer, performer, promoter, consumer. Cultural artifacts now exist because someone made them and/or because algorithms detected a space where they should exist and then filled it. Even the once-stalwart security of a computer science degree is reportedly under assault, with AI replacing entry-level coders. Such efficiency may be a goal of Open AI and ventures like Meta's Superintelligence Labs. CEO Mark Zuckerberg is reportedly paying record salaries to poach engineers who will 'fast-track work on machines that could outthink humans on many tasks.' In a world where $100 million AI engineers are prompting the future of our social, cultural, and professional experience, the trajectory appears to be solipsistic efficiency: a frictionless, perpetual system tailored to create and satisfy our individual wants before we knew we had them. Even a $100,000-per-year engineer, who may now be out of work, would tell you that such a concept violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. After all, energy cannot be created from nothing, and systems trend toward entropy. But solipsistic efficiency simulates energy through perception. You feel like something was created. Time was spent. Meaning was produced. But in reality, the loop simply confected noise based on prescriptive analytics into a temporarily convincing form shaped to some strategic, synthetic engagement protocols. The extent and time-horizon for such an existential shift will depend not only on AI's advancement, but human choices about we value and who we are. The latter variable is confounded as AI-generated content saturates the mediascape and feeds it back into what we consume. According to science fiction author Storm Humbert 'AI was engineered to solve a problem: shifting creativity to wealth while shifting wealth away from creators.' There's a kind of cultural entropy inversion at work: the more content we generate through closed AI loops, the less value it contains. Can this process increase understanding, connection, originality or is it just more frictionless production, more viral polish? On one hand authenticity has never been more prized. Because of that though the suspicion of inauthenticity becomes part of the draw, like a world reoriented to the ontology of professional wrestling. Is that book real? Is that DJ human? Did AOC really say that? When every artifact can be faked, doubt itself becomes a form of engagement. We click to solve a mystery that grows harder to solve by every click. To be clear, this isn't a Luddite argument against technology. AI has real potential in augmenting creativity, accessibility, and speed. I've used it to help organize, shape, caption, and optimize this article (per Forbes guidelines). But the feedback loops it can create—especially when paired with platform incentives and weak editorial oversight—risk replacing meaning with momentum. We need friction and provenance, to put it bluntly. We need platforms and publishers to invest in verifiability and authorial transparency, and to reward editorial standards as well as GEO and SEO. We need algorithms that foster human connection, not just predictive profitability. And we need cultural gatekeepers—critics, educators, and institutions—to ask not just is it engaging, but is it real? And why does it matter if it's not? Friction and inefficiency are, in some ways, what make us human. Instant transportation between destinations means sacrificing the journey. What would The Canterbury Tales be if the pilgrimage from the Tabard Inn to the Shrine of Thomas Becket were instantaneous? Solipsistic efficiency doesn't directly violate physics. But it violates our ability to know what's real, what's worth preserving, and what, if anything, actually happened. Once the guardrails of reality are gone, the laws of physics no longer exist, at least not to our perception. The Hearst telegram was about manufacturing war. These new loops manufacture demand, legitimacy, and cultural weight—not because of what the content says, but because of how it was engineered a priori. You furnish the engagement; I'll furnish the reality.
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
ICE to rollout bold, new cars emblazoned with agency's name, logo
This will blow ICE's cover. Immigration agents who have long gone undercover to make arrests across the country will soon be rolling in vehicles boldly emblazoned with the agency's logo — leaving agents furious and scared for their lives. The new fleet will be dark blue with 'ICE' plastered in giant, yellow letters across the side, along with the phrase 'defend the homeland' in all-caps, a photo obtained by The Post shows. Advertisement The vehicles are expected to be rolled out in Washington, DC, imminently, sources said. They will then be gradually deployed across the country. 3 New ICE vehicle's are marked with the words 'Defend the Homeland.' Obtained by NY Post 'Obviously, we're going to need additional vehicles as we build out our workforce, so there'll be some marked vehicles from here in DC and around the country,' an ICE insider told The Post. Advertisement But agents — who are dealing with a 1,000% increase in assaults by illegal immigrants and anti-ICE activists — say they're concerned this will further expose them to dangerous threats. 'It's like having a bullseye,' said one ICE source. 'This will only raise officer-involved incidents in the streets because people will target the vehicles,' said another agency source, adding that agitators have already successfully 'impeded operations.' The sources described scary incidents where activists have slashed tires and hurled projectiles at their cars. Advertisement 3 ICE agents detain a man in Chicago. The Washington Post via Getty Images Agents already wear masks to shield their identities and dress in street clothes while making arrests — a practice that has come under scrutiny as the Trump administration ramps up its mass deportation effort. 'They won't let us do our jobs,' a source explained of the anti-ICE agitators. DHS didn't immediately respond to The Post's request for comment. Advertisement 3 ICE agents make arrests outside New York City court rooms. Michael Nigro/Pacific Press/Shutterstock It is not clear how many vehicles ICE will deploy nationwide or how much the new fleet will cost. It is also unclear who greenlit the bold, new cars. The fleet will be used in arrest operations but will not be utilized in undercover surveillance missions that are often conducted before an illegal immigrant target is collared, an ICE insider said. The imminent rollout of the new SUVs in DC comes as President Trump seized control of the city's police department in an effort to crack down on crime in the nation's capital. 'We are here with a large presence in DC following the president's announcement on Monday… we have additional officers and teams here in DC for the foreseeable future. You will be seeing a larger presence around the city as we make DC safe again,' said an ICE insider. On Wednesday night, immigration agents with the agency set up a checkpoint on 14th Street in Northwest DC that quickly drew a crowd of unruly protesters. 'Why are you here? You are trying to arrest innocent people? What's your purpose? What's your goal? What's the motive? Why won't you show your face? Do you look yourself in the mirror and think 'I did a good job today?'' one protester was heard yelling at officers, according to Fox News. Some of the demonstrators were also heard encouraging drivers to 'turn left' to avoid the checkpoint altogether, the outlet reported.
