It Ends with Everybody Suing Everybody: Justin Baldoni’s Libel Claim Against the New York Times

It Ends with Us, a film based on the novel of the same name by Colleen Hoover, premiered in August 2024 to commercial success. However, the more interesting drama, especially for defamation aficionados (aka sicko lawyers), happened behind the scenes.

During the early days of promotion for the film, fans noticed that the two stars, Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively, were not making appearances together and that Lively seemed to have unfollowed Baldoni on Instagram. Even more conspicuous was the tonal split that separated the two stars’ PR campaigns. Baldoni, both the director and lead, focused his promotion on the film’s messaging around domestic violence, while Lively took a more lighthearted, girl-power-type approach. Lively soon faced backlash online for being tone deaf, with headlines like “Is Blake Lively set to be CANCELLED?” making their rounds on social media. Like most feuds, the drama seemed to peter out following the movie’s release.

That is, until December 21, when The New York Times published a piece titled “‘We Can Bury Anyone’: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine.” The story covers Lively’s complaint with the California Civil Rights Department alleging that Baldoni and his production company Wayfarer sexually harassed her during the film’s shooting and retaliated against her in an aggressive PR campaign meant to damage her reputation.

Less than a week later, Baldoni, along with Wayfarer and others, returned fire, filing a lawsuit against the Times for libel and other claims. In their lawsuit, Baldoni et al. allege that “Lively found willing allies at the New York Times, which uncritically embraced her CRD Complaint as fact and disregarded the Plaintiffs’ emphatic objections.”[1]

Baldoni’s lawsuit presents facts that potentially complicate Lively’s narrative. For example, Baldoni contests Lively’s claim that he “repeatedly entered her makeup trailer while she was undressed, including when she was breastfeeding” by sharing Lively’s own text message invitation: “I’m just pumping in my trailer if you wanna work out our lines.” Ultimately, discovery will be necessary to paint the full picture and determine who was in the wrong, but to get there a court must first decide if the Times is at all responsible for covering Lively’s Complaint.

All’s Fair in Report Privilege and War

If Baldoni’s allegations – that Lively falsely characterized him as a sexual harasser who purposefully trashed her reputation – are true, the Times will be in a tough spot. However, because they relied heavily on Lively’s Complaint in writing their story, they will likely assert the Fair Report privilege. Fair Report allows publications to disseminate allegations made in official public documents (such as lawsuits or police reports), even if those statements are later found to be false.

For example, when comedian Steve Harvey’s ex-wife sued him for “Soul Murder,” the media was free to report on the allegation without risking Harvey’s legal wrath – as long as it was couched as an unproven accusation made in court. When reporters show their work and avoid adopting the allegations as their own (or clearly express their reaction as an opinion), they are protected by the privilege.

It is not currently known whether Lively’s Complaint was actually on file with the California Civil Rights Department at the time of the Times report, and the Department does not release such reports to the public. Some courts have rejected Fair Report defenses when the record at issue is not publicly accessible at the time of the report. Helpfully, the Times published the Lively Complaint.

In that way, this case is reminiscent of a lawsuit over the infamous Steele Dossier. In 2017, Buzzfeed News published a privately funded intelligence report, alleging collusion between Donald Trump and Russia, that was shared with the FBI. Subsequently, a Russian accused of hacking the Democratic Party by the Dossier filed a defamation suit against Buzzfeed. [2] Despite the lack of public access to the Dossier, Buzzfeed prevailed. Critical to the outcome was the Court’s satisfaction that BuzzFeed did not “editorialize or restate the Dossier; it simply published it.”[3]

Unlike BuzzFeed, the Times did not simply publish Lively’s complaint. Rather, it restated her allegations and stated that it conducted a “meticulous” review of “thousands of pages of original documents, including the text messages and emails that we quote accurately and at length in the article.” In other words, it vouched for the veracity of Lively’s Complaint.

Malice, Actually

Assuming that the Court does not find that the New York Times is protected under the Fair Report privilege, and that Baldoni can meet his burden of proving falsity (a tall order), the Times has one remaining firewall: actual malice. In libel claims involving public figures like celebrities, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant published a statement with knowledge (or reckless disregard) that it was false.[4]

In 2016, Rolling Stone was ordered to pay $3 million in damages to a University of Virginia dean, Nicole Eramo, after it published a later-discredited article about a gang-rape on campus. The Court found that Rolling Stone falsely accused Eramo of failing to investigate a shocking act of sexual violence and that its failure to seek corroboration from third parties and comment from subjects constituted actual malice:

Erdely relied heavily on the narrative Jackie provided in writing the Article, so much so that she did not obtain the full names of Jackie's assailants or contact them. Nor did Erdely interview the individuals who found Jackie the night of her alleged gang-rape.[5]

If the Times undertook significant efforts to independently corroborate Lively’s Complaint, that will make an actual malice finding less likely to stick. But with respect to seeking comment from Baldoni, the timeline may become a critical factor. According to Baldoni’s lawsuit:

At 9:46 p.m. (EST) on Friday, December 20, 2024, NYT reporter Megan Twohey (“Twohey”) requested Plaintiffs’ response to an imminent 4,000-word bombshell story concerning their alleged orchestration of a smear campaign targeting Blake Lively (“Lively”), purportedly in response to Lively’s disclosure of concerns about the working environment on the set of It Ends With Us (the “Film”)…The Film’s production company, Wayfarer, its principals, Baldoni and Heath, and its public relations representatives, Nathan and Abel, were asked to provide “on-the-record comment” and to notify the Times of any “inaccuracies” by noon (EST) the next day, on December 21, 2024—a mere 14 hours overnight.[6]

Simply put, that’s not a lot of time. One mystery this lawsuit will likely reveal is why the Times gave Baldoni so little time to reply to a broad array of allegations (Lively’s Complaint is 80 pages). It’s common for media outlets to give short response deadlines when reporting on publicly filed lawsuits. However, the Times insistence that it independently verified the credibility of Lively’s Complaint puts the report on unique footing.

Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman responded to the Times around 2 AM with a statement:[7]

It is shameful that Ms. Lively and her representatives would make such serious and categorically false accusations against Mr. Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios and its representatives, as yet another desperate attempt to ‘fix’ her negative reputation which was garnered from her own remarks and actions during the campaign for the film; interviews and press activities that were observed publicly, in real time and unedited, which allowed for the internet to generate their own views and opinions. These claims are completely false, outrageous and intentionally salacious with an intent to publicly hurt and rehash a narrative in the media. Wayfarer Studios made the decision to proactively hire a crisis manager prior to the marketing campaign of the film, to work alongside their own representative with Jonesworks employed by Stephanie Jones, due to the multiple demands and threats made by Ms. Lively during production which included her threatening to not showing up to set, threatening to not promote the film, ultimately leading to its demise during release, if her demands were not met. It was also discovered that Ms. Lively enlisted her own representative, Leslie Sloan with Vision PR, who also represents Mr. Reynolds, to plant negative and completely fabricated and false stories with media, even prior to any marketing had commenced for the film, which was another reason why Wayfarer Studios made the decision to hire a crisis professional to commence internal scenario planning in the case they needed to address. The representatives of Wayfarer Studios still did nothing proactive nor retaliated, and only responded to incoming media inquiries to ensure balanced and factual reporting and monitored social activity. What is pointedly missing from the cherry-picked correspondence is the evidence that there were no proactive measures taken with media or otherwise; just internal scenario planning and private correspondence to strategize which is standard operating procedure with public relations professionals.

Baldoni’s lawsuit insists that he planned to follow up prior to the noon deadline, though the response offers no such indication of intent. Perhaps the Times considered their invitation for dialogue rejected (as they often are). Pro tip for plaintiff lawyers: always ask for more time.

It Starts With It Ends With Us

Between Baldoni’s lawsuit – and Lively’s counter-counter-attack sexual harassment lawsuit of her own – these opening volleys are only the beginning of a drag out legal war. Baldoni’s attorney has promised to sue Lively herself, as well as others. So while Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively are on an inescapable legal collision course, only time will tell if the Times will be along for the ride.

Endnotes:
[1] Compl. at ¶5, Wayfarer Studios LLC v. New York Times, 24STCV34662 (Ca. Sup. Ct. Dec. 31, 2024).

[2] Gubarev v. Buzzfeed, Inc., 340 F.Supp.3d 1304 (S.D.Fla. 2018). 

[3] Gubarev v. Buzzfeed, Inc., 340 F.Supp.3d 1304, 1317 (S.D.Fla. 2018). 

[4] New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280 (1964).

[5] Eramo v. Rolling Stone, LLC, 209 F.Supp.3d 862, 867 (W.D. Va. 2016).

[6] Compl. at ¶1-2, Wayfarer Studios LLC v. New York Times, 24STCV34662 (Ca. Sup. Ct. Dec. 31, 2024).

[7] Compl. at ¶118, Wayfarer Studios LLC v. New York Times, 24STCV34662 (Ca. Sup. Ct. Dec. 31, 2024).