Blake Lively
A celebrity harassment case becomes a test of whether new legal protections can truly shield those who speak out. David Shankbone, CC BY 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Blake Lively is continuing her legal battle for damages against Justin Baldoni in New York federal court this week, invoking a little-tested California statute despite settling her main retaliation claims last month.

The actress, who alleged sexual harassment on the set of the 2024 film 'It Ends with Us,' has pivoted to a motion seeking legal fees and compensation under the state's anti-SLAPP law, leaving Judge Lewis J. Liman to decide whether to apply the untested provision.

The reports came after both sides declared victory following a settlement that resolved the bulk of Lively's lawsuit against Baldoni's production company, with no reported payment to the actress.

Baldoni's legal team hailed the deal as a win because no money changed hands, while Lively's attorneys insisted that compensation was still forthcoming through a separate legal mechanism.

Lively had accused Baldoni of sexual harassment during filming, prompting what she described as a retaliatory online smear campaign against her. Baldoni and his associates filed a defamation suit in response, but a judge dismissed it last year.

California Anti-SLAPP Law

Lively's legal strategy now hinges entirely on California's two-year-old anti-SLAPP statute, legislation designed specifically to prevent the weaponisation of defamation lawsuits against individuals who report harassment. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, and these laws exist to stop powerful entities from using costly litigation to silence critics or intimidate harassment complainants.

The crucial question before Judge Liman is whether he will utilise this state law in a federal court setting, a question that has rarely been tested in California's legal history. The settlement agreement resolving Lively's larger retaliation case explicitly exempted the question of damages under this California statute, deliberately leaving the door open for her legal team.

Her lawyers have framed this remaining motion as an opportunity to establish precedent on a #MeToo-era law that could have far-reaching implications beyond this celebrity dispute. This tactical move represents Lively's last chance at securing a payout in the case, with her team staking everything on Judge Liman's willingness to break new legal ground.

Uncharted Legal Territory

Judge Lewis J. Liman now faces a decision with no clear roadmap, as the California anti-SLAPP law has scarcely been applied in exactly these circumstances. The federal judge sitting in New York must determine whether to award penalties and legal fees under a state statute that remains largely untested in courtrooms.

Both sides have placed very different bets on how he will rule, with Baldoni's team likely hoping he declines to extend the law's reach while Lively's attorneys push for a pioneering application. What makes this moment particularly significant is that the outcome could establish whether celebrity harassment cases open the door to broader applications of anti-SLAPP protections.

If Judge Liman grants Lively's motion, it would signal that the law's protections extend beyond traditional public-participation cases to Hollywood production disputes. Conversely, a rejection would leave the statute's potential in this context unconfirmed, potentially limiting its utility for future harassment complainants in the entertainment industry.

The dismissal of Baldoni's countersuit last year already removed one legal obstacle, but it does not guarantee success on this motion. What remains unclear is whether the judge will view the online campaign Lively described as sufficient grounds for anti-SLAPP penalties, or whether he will require more concrete evidence of defamation weaponisation.

Legal experts watching the case note that the paucity of precedents makes any prediction genuinely difficult, as no similar celebrity harassment case has navigated this exact legal pathway.

Lively's team has not disclosed what specific damages they are seeking beyond legal fees, leaving the financial stakes somewhat opaque.

The absence of public figures commenting on the legal merits suggests both sides are cautious about revealing their full strategy before the judge's ruling.

What is certain is that this motion represents the final chapter in a legal saga that has already consumed months of court time and generated extensive media coverage.

Writer's pick