Justin Baldoni and his lawyers "would not hesitate" to take on Blake Lively in court again.

The It Ends with Us co-stars had been locked in a legal dispute since December 2024, when Blake accused Justin - who also directed the film of sexual harassment and co-ordinating a smear campaign against her, prompting him and his Wayfarer Studios to hit back with a countersuit against the 38-year-old actress and her husband Ryan Reynolds, accusing the Hollywood couple of defamation and extortion.

But Justin subsequently had his countersuit claims dismissed by a judge and in April, Blake's sexual harassment claims were tossed out on jurisdictional grounds, leading to them reaching an out-of-court settlement, just two weeks before they were set to go to trial in New York.

And now, after a court ruling on Friday (12.06.26) in which Judge Lewis Liman ruled Blake could only seek legal costs from Justin, but not damages under a Californian law designed to protect anyone making sexual misconduct allegations, the 42-year-old star's team have claimed they "won".

Justin's lawyer, Brian Freedman, said in a statement: "We fought and won against a coordinated effort built on allegations of sexual harassment, retaliation and a smear campaign that never happened.

"Ms. Lively demanded over $300 million in fees and damages, had 10 of her 13 claims dismissed, she then chose to settle and received nothing..

"Notwithstanding that all of her sexual harassment and defamation claims were thrown out by the court, Ms. Lively then pivoted to exploit a California law that was established to protect real victims in what proved to be a fruitless mission to obtain damages. Once again, she failed.

"Ms. Lively was only awarded limited attorney fees for a single claim as part of a case that lasted only a matter of months, nothing more.

"Throughout this process, innocent people had their reputations unfairly tarnished. There was no sexual harassment. There was no retaliation. There was no smear campaign.

"The court recognised it, the record reflects it and we have maintained it from the very beginning. We would not hesitate to stand up for the truth again."

Despite the setback, Blake's team insisted she is the "prevailing defendant".

Her attorneys, Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb, said: "Today's ruling makes it clear that Ms. Lively brought her claims in good faith, that there was no evidence she acted with malice and that she is the prevailing defendant under Section 47.1.

"The Court is awarding Ms. Lively attorneys' fees and costs and has explained that a prevailing defendant under Section 47.1 may seek damages using different procedural mechanisms.

"The parties' settlement agreement expressly preserves Ms. Lively's rights to obtain those damages. Ms. Lively is gratified that her lawsuit shows how Section 47.1 and laws like it create a path for survivors to hold accountable those who weaponize online attacks and retaliatory lawsuits to intimidate and silence survivors."