Author: Bianca Wilson

The battle continues in Hollywood.

The explosive feud between Blake Lively and her co-star from the 2024 film It Ends With Us, Justin Baldoni, has dominated showbiz headlines for the past few months. Lively alleges that Baldoni sexually harassed her during production of the romance film, claiming that he would regularly speak to her about her sex life, improvise sex scenes, and even claim that he could speak to her late father. These grim allegations have led to a high profile and complicated public and legal fallout between the actors, so today at Brandsmiths, we cut through the pageantry of off stage Hollywood drama to provide the legal perspective that so much of the coverage has been missing.

Background
This fallout began formally back in November 2023, when a lawyer representing Lively emailed the studios behind the production a list of provisions required to keep her on board with the filming. This led to a meeting in January 2024 in which a revised list of 30 conditions was presented, intended to contractually protect Lively from harassment by Baldoni and producer James Heath. The conditions included no longer showing her videos or images of nude women, not entering her trailer while she was undressed, no sexual comments or nonconsensual touching of her, and no discussions of pornography or sex with her - all quite standard expectations for a workplace environment.

In response to this, Lively alleges that Baldoni hired the crisis PR team that Johnny Depp (in)famously used during his messy divorce with Amber Heard. This crack team's sole instruction, Lively claims, was to conduct a smear campaign against the A-lister and damage her reputation.

The feud then rumbled on away from the public eye for the next few months, until in December 2024, Lively filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department alleging Baldoni invaded her privacy. Then, just a week after her complaint was filed with the Civil Rights Department, Lively formally filed a lawsuit in New York federal court against Baldoni and others, alleging sexual harassment.

The formal filing in New York escalated this feud to a boiling point, with Baldoni entering a retaliatory $250 million libel lawsuit against the New York Times on the very same day Lively had submitted hers. Baldoni targeted the New York Times specifically because he alleges that they had “cowed to the wants and whims of two powerful ‘untouchable’ Hollywood elites” in their reporting and were therefore complicit in damaging his reputation.

As a consequence of all of this, Baldoni was dropped by his talent agency (WME), who also by an unfortunate coincidence represent Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds. Celebrity representation contracts are deft and complex, so for Baldoni to be dropped by his agency so suddenly and without a lawsuit being concluded would indicate that WME have a strong disrepute clause in his contract. Disrepute clauses have become more and more commonplace in the post MeToo world and are necessary for brands to protect their image. These clauses are the final barrier of protection a brand has with their ‘talent’, just look at the fallout between Adidas and Kanye West when the artist began posting provocative tweets. The clothing giant tried everything they could to cut ties with Kanye but due to a (presumed) lack of a disrepute clause in his contract, Adidas were stuck with the rapper for far longer than they would have liked.

As this case is being fought in the US, the subtle difference between the laws in the UK can also be seen. Due to the UK’s more stringent defamation and employment laws, Baldoni would likely be facing additional claims if it can be proven that he employed a PR campaign with the specific intention of harming Lively’s reputation.

UK Law
It can be said that UK law is perhaps more adapted to the modern digital age; we all know that social media facilitates the wildfire-like spread of information and news, making it nigh impossible to remove or ‘take back’ content. Therefore, if a smear campaign is conducted, as both Lively and Baldoni allege, then victims in the UK can pursue claims of misuse of private information, data protection, defamation, or even harassment, as even one post can cause immeasurable harm. All of these quite modern protections are crucially not offered under US law.

In UK law, punitive damages are also exceptionally rare , marking a distinct difference from some other legal systems. The primary focus of UK libel law is to provide compensation and remuneration for the actual harm suffered by the victim, rather than to punish the offender. As the pace of readily available information and news about public figures continues to accelerate, public opinion plays an increasingly significant role in shaping the reputations of those involved. The outcomes of legal cases have profound financial and emotional consequences for all parties, while also heavily influencing public perception. This unregulated "public court" of opinion now holds unprecedented sway over reputations, with legal disputes often serving as critical sources of information that shape its judgments.

While the court of public opinion has largely made up its mind in regards to the Lively / Baldoni case, the legal case will of course depend heavily on evidence and proving the allegations.

About Brandsmiths
Brandsmiths is the law firm for the world’s leading brands. With a highly skilled team of IP lawyers, the firm specialises in all matters related to intellectual property, confidential information, copyright, designs and database rights.

If you would like to discuss in more detail, please get in touch.