Lively vs. Baldoni: The Real Reason the Feuding Stars Settled

Summary

The Trial: USA – Episode Summary

Episode Title: Lively vs. Baldoni: The Real Reason the Feuding Stars Settled
Host: Kayla Brantley
Guest: Thomas H. Herndon, Jr., Entertainment & Sports Attorney
Release Date: May 6, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode of The Trial: USA dives into the headline-making legal battle and eventual settlement between Hollywood stars Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni. Their dispute arose out of their collaboration on the 2024 film It Ends With Us, blending on-set drama with legal accusations, public fallout, and an intense social media examination. Host Kayla Brantley and legal expert Thomas H. Herndon, Jr. break down why the case settled just before trial, the legal strategies on both sides, and what the case reveals about celebrity lawsuits and public reputation.

---

Key Discussion Points

Background of the Dispute

• Nature of the Case: Legal battle involved claims by Lively against Baldoni for sexual harassment and a countersuit by Baldoni alleging a smear campaign led by Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds.
• Legal Outcomes: Most of Lively’s claims dismissed on procedural grounds (including sexual harassment), while Baldoni’s countersuit was dismissed earlier. The remaining issues focused primarily on a contract dispute ([01:27]–[03:36]).
• Settlement Timing: Both sides announced settlement mere weeks before trial, coinciding with Lively’s appearance at the Met Gala. Joint statement was unusually conciliatory despite the contentious dispute ([03:36]).
• Settlement Terms: Reportedly, no financial payment was involved; confidentiality and non-disparagement likely key components ([06:33]–[07:27]).

Why Settle on the Eve of Trial?

• Litigation Realities: Extensive discovery, high costs, reputational stakes, and unpredictable jury outcomes often push celebrity parties to resolve disputes just before trial ([04:19]–[05:07]).
• Herndon's Insight:

  "We see it all the time in litigation, especially right after the pretrial orders are filed and you’re getting your witnesses ready for trial."
  – Thomas H. Herndon, Jr. [04:19]

Motivations Behind Settlement

• On Lively’s Side:
  Motivation rooted in diminished chances after many claims were dismissed; preserving reputation and the wish to move forward.
• On Baldoni’s Side:
  Avoiding risk of even a limited legal loss; regaining control over his public image ([05:36]–[06:33]).

Typical Terms in Non-Monetary Celebrity Settlements

• Confidentiality: Both parties refrain from disclosing settlement details.
• Non-Disparagement: Neither party may publicly disparage the other.
• Enforcement: Potential financial penalties for breach ([06:48]–[07:27]).

The Joint Statement: PR Management in Action

• Content referenced the need for workplaces free of impropriety and acknowledged Lively’s concerns without assigning explicit blame.

• Quote from the joint statement:

  "We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserve to be heard. We remain firmly committed to workplaces free of improprieties and unproductive environments...allows all involved to move forward constructively and in peace, including a respectful environment online."
  – Read by Kayla Brantley [07:27]

• Herndon’s take:

  "It is very common that both parties will issue a joint statement following a litigation like this...it looks like having that joint statement...would be one of her goals."
  – Thomas H. Herndon, Jr. [08:19]

Who Actually Won?

• Herndon’s Perspective:

  "It’s not uncommon that both win...[in] these types of situations, the settlement is essentially that both parties give a little bit and some parties take a little bit."
  – [09:00]

Lessons for Celebrity Disputes

• Publicity Risks: The case became an internet “frenzy” due to publicized texts and intense social media scrutiny. Discovery exposed communications involving third parties and even drew in figures like Taylor Swift.
• Implications:

  "Everyone wants to be in a workplace that they enjoy and feel safe in...I don’t think that anyone wants to be accused of any wrongdoing...I think both parties got something out of this."
  – Thomas H. Herndon, Jr. [10:10]

How Did So Much Become Public?

• Court System: Courts favor transparency, but some information was sealed. Nevertheless, much became publicly available via motions and filings, fueling public intrigue ([13:01]).

Case Dynamics Changed by Court Rulings

• Most of Lively’s 13 claims—including against individuals—were struck, leaving essentially a breach of contract and two statutory claims against entities. This shift diminished potential damages and the complexity of the trial ([13:50]–[14:33]).

What Would Have Happened at Trial?

• Evidence would have centered on emails, texts, contracts, and damages—especially regarding contractual terms and retaliation under California law ([14:43]).

The Met Gala Moment

• Public Perception: Lively’s composed, smiling red-carpet appearance symbolized relief and closure after a protracted, high-stress ordeal ([15:57]).

On Trial Outcomes and Strategies

• Legal Standards: Plaintiff would need to prove elements of statutory claims and straightforward breach of contract; damages would depend on surviving claims ([16:33]).
• Trial Unpredictability:

  "You never know...Depending...on the evidence. You never know which piece of evidence is going to really be determinant of the decision."
  – Thomas H. Herndon, Jr. [17:58]

---

Memorable Quotes & Timestamps

• Herndon on last-minute settlements:

  "It’s actually very common...after the parties have gone through extensive discovery...the parties decide that maybe they want to settle, maybe they want to have a different look at potentially resolving the issue without going to trial."
  — [04:19]

• Herndon on damages:

  "There could be damages, at least for the statutory claims in California. And while the damages might be limited on the breach of contract claims, there’s still a risk."
  — [05:45]

• On the public spectacle and data leaks:

  "There are several different rules with regards to what is confidential and what is not, and the courts prefer ... that the information be provided to the public in general because we want the hearings and all these disputes aired in public."
  — [13:01]

• Herndon in closing:

  "Having that over you for two years is a lot to handle on both sides...So having the ability to have a resolution, to go out, have fun, relax. I’m sure that’s something that she’s been wanting to do for a long time..."
  — [15:57]

---

Major Takeaways

• Settlements Are Common: Especially with celebrities, the high costs, risks, and reputational stakes almost always drive parties to settle before trial.
• Non-Monetary Terms: In high-profile disputes, confidentiality and non-disparagement can be more valuable than a cash payout.
• Public Intrusion: Even with attempts at secrecy, legal proceedings can expose private communications, particularly in high-interest cases.
• No Clear Winner: A settlement typically means both sides compromised—neither got everything they wanted, but both gained closure.
• Cultural Impact: The case shows the precarious line celebrity disputes walk between legal reality and the court of public opinion.

---

For listeners craving the big moments and expert insight on the Lively/Baldoni feud—and the broader patterns of celebrity litigation—this episode delivers clear, candid analysis in the unvarnished style of The Trial: USA.

Transcript

[Thomas H. Herndon, Jr.]

The crime desk arresting podcasts

[BetterHelp Ad]

a better help ad hold on one second. I just need to. What if you had a room where no one interrupts? No notifications, no expectations, just space to talk with. BetterHelp Therapy happens in a space that's yours. Visit betterhelp.comrandompodcast for 10% off your first month of online therapy.

[Stephen (Smash Daddy)]

Close your eyes. Listen to Monday.com feel the sensation of an AI work platform so flexible and intuitive it feels like it was built just for you. Now open your eyes, go to Monday.comstart for free and finally breathe.

[Mom (Verizon Ad)]

Hey honey, it's Mom. Did you know if we switch to Verizon, we can get four phones for $0 plus four lines for $25 a line? Call me back me again. That's just $100 a month for four lines on unlimited welcome plus four phones. No trade in needed. Call me. It's Mom. America's Best Network Verizon. That's the one we're talking about. I'll send you a text.

[Verizon Network Ad]

America's Best network based on RootMetric's best overall mobile network performance US second half 2025 four new lines on a limited welcome and autopay. See verizon.com for details.

[Kayla Brantley]

This week on the trial USA a major development in a captivating Hollywood legal saga A list Actress Blake Lively and actor director Justin Baldoni settled a lawsuit ahead of a trial that would have further exposed an ugly unraveling. During the production of It Ends With Us, a 2024 film about a romance that turns abusive and toxic, a real life friendship between the co stars devolved into a bitter and public cal conflict. Lively accused Baldoni of on set sexual harassment, while Baldoni alleged the Gossip Girl actress and her famous husband, Ryan Reynolds, aimed to tarnish his name and derail his career with a smear campaign. Recently, a federal judge in New York threw out most of Lively's claims on procedural grounds, including those related to her sexual harassment accusations. Baldoni's countersuit against Lively and Reynolds was dismissed in June. A trial would have focused on Lively's contract dispute claims, but the settlement announced on Monday put an end to the proceedings immediately after Lively stepped out on the red carpet at the Met gala. All smiles without a word. Little is known about the agreement, but Lively and Baldoni released a joint statement calling the film a source of pride to those who worked on it. It alluded to the essence of the ordeal, but it did not explicitly attribute blame to either side, the statement said in part. We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recogn concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserve to be heard. We remain firmly committed to workplaces free of improprieties and unproductive environments. Lively was seeking $300 million from Baldoni, but the Daily Mail reported exclusively that the agreement with Baldoni's production company, Wayfarer, involved no financial deal at all. The pre trial settlement was not a surprise to observers in the entertainment world as celebrities often have a reputational interest in ending public disputes that have the potential to inflict bad brand damage, which has already been done thus far. After troves of discovery, unsealed text and messages between the pair and their friends. Today we have entertainment and sports lawyer Thomas H. Herndon, Jr. To discuss the settlement. I'm Kayla Brantley. This is the Trial usa. We'll be back in a moment. I'm joined now by Thomas H. Herndon, Jr. Entertainment and Sports attorney. Thomas thank you for being here. We'd love to ask you about how these types of settlements tend to evolve. You know, just weeks ago, Blake Lively released a statement saying that she looked forward to having her side of the story heard at trial. This has been a two year saga and it wasn't until the very end, just weeks away from trial, that they finally settled. So how does something like this come about and especially at the very last minute?

[Thomas H. Herndon, Jr.]

It's actually very common. So we see it all the time in litigation where after the parties have gone through extensive discovery and motion practice on the heels of a trial, which, you know, is really expensive and it takes a long time, the parties decide that maybe they want to settle, maybe they want to have a different look at potentially resolving the issue without going to trial. And so we see it all the time in litigation, especially right after the pretrial orders are filed and you're getting your witnesses ready for trial.

[Kayla Brantley]

But we've known that this trial was set for about a year now. You know, we've been looking at this May 2026 date. Why not save all of that money that, you know, they, they put into it for this whole year? And why not settle about a year ago?

[Thomas H. Herndon, Jr.]

Good question. The clients always have to wait till the last minute. It takes time for a lot of the clients to understand the legal issues. It takes time for them to see the decisions and the motions, the dispositive motions. And then after that, there tends to be a softening of positions on both sides which usually ends up in a resolution prior to trial. It tends to be unlikely that these types of cases are usually tried. There usually is a settlement involved because there's just so much at risk for both parties.

[Kayla Brantley]

And based on your understanding of this dispute, what would some of the motivations be for Lively's side and then for Justin Baldoni's side?

[Thomas H. Herndon, Jr.]

Yeah. So for the plaintiff's side, look, there was a dispositive motion that came out in April. There were lots of causes of actions that were dismissed and there were only three remaining. And of those three, they were limited to various different parties as well. And so the dispositive motion did gut several of the causes of actions for the plaintiff, which then likely caused a softening of the plaintiff's position. As far as the defendants is concerned, look, there's still risk, right? You have three causes of actions that remained with a few parties there. One was breach of contract. The other was based on statutory law in California. So there could be damages, at least for the statutory claims in California. And while the damages might be limited on the breach of contract claims, there's still a risk. So both parties have an incentive to see and try to work something out before trial.

[Kayla Brantley]

And, you know, details of the settlement itself have not been made public, but the Daily Mail did report that there was no financial aspect to it. And what do you imagine these non monetary terms of the settlement would be?

[Thomas H. Herndon, Jr.]

You know, one of the key components typically would be a non disparagement clause, making sure that neither party disparages the other party. There typically is a confidentiality provision to keep things confidential. And to the extent that if someone were to breach that confidentiality agreement, there's some type of callback of monetary amount to the extent there's a breach. But typically, like I said, in these types of cases, it's sometimes common that money is not the driving factor. And it really comes down to both sides having a discussion with their client about what their goals are. Right. And if their goals are not monetarily, then there's a possibility of having a settlement that there's no money involved.

[Kayla Brantley]

I want to read part of the joint statement that Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni put out. They said, we acknowledge the process, presented challenges and recognized concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserve to be heard. We remain firmly committed to workplaces, free of improprieties and unproductive environments. It's our sincere hope that this brings closure and allows all involved to move forward constructively and in peace, including a respectful environment online. Now, that was a joint statement between the two, which seems kind of surprising considering how contentious this really got. What do you feel in listening to that statement was important for Blake Lively side to get out of it. And to make those points. And why do you think that, you know, Baldoni would agree to do this joint statement after such a contentious battle?

[Thomas H. Herndon, Jr.]

Again, it is very common that both parties will issue a statement, a joint statement, following a litigation like this. As far as Blake, it seemed that obviously I don't represent her, but it appears that our goal was to bring awareness to these type of situations. So it looks like having that joint statement and making those comments, it appears that that would be one of her goals. And as far as the defense is concerned, obviously clearing the defense's name, making sure that both parties are able to move on and do their work that they want to do. And so I think it really goes to both parties goals as far as the statement's concerned.

[Kayla Brantley]

Who do you think was the real winner or loser in this case?

[Thomas H. Herndon, Jr.]

It's hard to say. I mean, look, everyone's gonna take their sides of who's the winner, right? What I will say is that in these types of situations, especially after a very contentious litigation with lots of motion practice, it's not uncommon that both win. In these types of situations, the settlement is essentially that both parties give a little bit and some parties take a little bit. So in that circumstance, neither got everything that they want. Right. And so walking from a settlement like this, both sides have something to keep their head up high and say, you know, they got something out of it. And I think that's the reason why we saw a settlement from this case.

[Kayla Brantley]

Yeah, I do think from this, you know, this case became such a frenzy on social media, and I could only imagine how much worse it would have gotten if it went to trial. You know, you saw texts and emails recovered through this discovery and then being put on social media and everyone analyzing it. What does this case say about celebrity disputes and how they ideally should be handled? And are there any lessons for others in the entertainment industry when it comes to going forward with a case like this?

[Thomas H. Herndon, Jr.]

Look, I mean, I think. I think we first have to start off with people that are famous, tended not to be famous when they're first born. Right. It's something that. That came about later in their life. And so they're generally just like any other client, right. That they have wants, desires, fears, aspirations, all those things. Right. And I think all those come into play in every type of case, not just entertainment. And, you know, as far as how you deal with each other, look, I mean, it's the same of any type of workplace, right? Everyone wants to be in a workplace that they enjoy and feel safe in right? And I don't think that anyone wants to be accused of any wrongdoing. So like I said, I think both parties got something out of this.

[Kayla Brantley]

We're taking a quick break after this.

[Mom (Verizon Ad)]

Hey honey, it's Mom. Did you know if we switch to Verizon we can get four phones for $0 plus four lines for $25 a line? Call me back me again. That's just $100 a month for four lines on unlimited welcome plus four phones. No trade in needed. Call me. It's Mom. America's best network Verizon. That's the one we're talking about.

[Verizon Network Ad]

I'll send you text America's best network based on root metrics Best Overall mobile network performance us second half 2025 four new lines and unlimited welcome and autopay. See verizon.com for details.

[Acast Announcer]

Acast Powers the World's Best Podcasts here's the show that we recommend.

[Jamie]

Do you like being educated on things that entertain but don't matter? Well then you need to be listening to the Podcast with Knox and Jamie Every Wednesday we put together an episode dedicated to delightful idiocy to give your brain a break from all the serious and important stuff.

[Podcast with Knox and Jamie Narrator]

Whether we're deep diving a classic movie, dissecting the true meanings behind the newest slang, or dunking on our own listeners for their bad takes or cringy stories, we always approach our topics with humor and just a little bit of side eye. And we end every episode with recommendations on all the best new movies, books, TV shows or music.

[Jamie]

To find out more, just search up the Podcast with Knox and Jamie. Wherever you listen to podcasts and prepare to make Wednesday your new favorite day of the week.

[Acast Announcer]

ACAST helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast.com

[Kayla Brantley]

I will say though that the entertainment industry usually is pretty good about keeping stuff like this under wraps, whether it's through non disclosure agreements, you know, out of court settlements. Did something go wrong here that suddenly we were privy to these celebrities texts? You know, Taylor Swift gets dragged in and then there's rumors of their friendship rupturing because of it. What went wrong here that it became such a public spectacle in the discovery

[Thomas H. Herndon, Jr.]

phase, the court handles how different information gets put into pleadings and is put forward to the public in general. There are several different rules with regards to what is confidential and what is not, and the courts prefer that the information be provided to the public in general because we want the hearings and all these disputes aired in public. So I think having Looked at the docket, there were definitely motions to seal, several motions to seal with certain information that was not made public. But some of the things were made public. And I think it gave a flavor to the public in general about what the issues were. And now, like I said, both parties can hopefully move on and go on about their work.

[Kayla Brantley]

Just a few weeks ago, the judge dismissed most of Blake Lively's case. How do you think that that may have factored into settling?

[Thomas H. Herndon, Jr.]

I think that was a huge, huge decision. They had 13 causes of actions. There were causes of actions against entities, individuals, and the court struck all the cause of actions against the individuals, leaving only a certain amount of cause of actions against the entities. And of those three the entities, one was for retaliation and one was aiding and abetting the retaliation. So to the extent that you were to knock out one of those, then you've only down to one cause of action, which is the breach of contract claim. So we're back to a run of the mill. No, well, I wouldn't say run the mill, but you're down to just a breach of contract case. So that. That does change the dynamic of a litigation.

[Kayla Brantley]

Obviously, you know, this is not going to trial, so we will never know. But if you had to imagine, you know, what do you think Baldoni's defense strategy would have been? What kind of evidence do you think would have been the strongest in this case?

[Thomas H. Herndon, Jr.]

Look, I mean, you know, we can only surmise because obviously there's. When it comes to evidence, the court makes determination of what comes in, what goes out. But what I will say is based on the cause of actions or retaliation, obviously, what we call esi, electronically stored information, text messages, emails, and those things would be heavily used in court. There would be some objections as far as hearsay and everything else, but I would. I would assume that some of those would be deemed omissions and things of that nature. Also, obviously, the contract, since the contract is at issue, that would be another evidentiary issue that gets presented. And then the big elephant in the room would be damages, Right? So on the damages, what would be the contractual damages based on a breach, and then what would be the damages based on violations of California law?

[Kayla Brantley]

Blake Lively last night was at the Met gala. I was there on the red carpet, and I was shocked to see her arrive, you know, smiling with her dress. You had some people call out and say, congratulations on the settlement. Some people made jokes saying, you know, does it end with you here? And she kind of took everything in stride. Didn't really say much, but Just smiled and walked through showing off her dress. What do you think? Think that says?

[Thomas H. Herndon, Jr.]

Well, it says a lot. It says, you know, I don't think the. The average person understands how stressful litigation is. Right. I always say it's like a wave, right? Your life goes up and down. The litigation's always there. And having that over you for two years is. Is a lot to handle on both sides, the plaintiff and the defendant. So having the ability to have a resolution, to go out, have fun, relax. I'm sure that's something that she's been wanting to do for a long time, and I think that goes to that.

[Kayla Brantley]

What would Blake Lively's lawyers have had to prove in this trial to be victorious?

[Thomas H. Herndon, Jr.]

Well, like I said before, there were three causes of actions that remained. Right. One was a violation under California law. So they would have to establish various elements under that claim under California law. And in doing so, the second cause of action was aiding and abetting. Right. By the agency. So to the extent they were unsuccessful in establishing the causes of actions and the claim for under California law, that would virtually just do away with both of those causes of actions. Right. And then a breach of contract is pretty straightforward, right. You have a contract, there are certain agreements and terms. One party breach those terms of the agreement, and there's damages. Right. And I think that would be with regards to a breach of contract claim. I could see damages being an issue. What damages, from a contractual standpoint, flowed from the breach, which would have been different if some of the other causes of actions survived. Those causes of actions could have warranted more damages. So, yeah, I think that the plaintiff. Not impossible, right? Everyone. You know, when you go to trial, you never know. I always say that if you have a jury and you show them a hundred pieces of evidence, you never know which piece of evidence is going to get you the win. Right. Everyone has a different way of reviewing the evidence and stuff like that. But look, as with any litigator, I'm sure they would, you know, to the extent they had to go to trial, it would have been ready and they would have presented their clay just like the defense would.

[Kayla Brantley]

Who do you think would have won this case? Have to ask that?

[Thomas H. Herndon, Jr.]

That is always a question. I will tell you, in my experience, you. You never know, right? You never know. Depending. I don't know if this was going to be a bench trial or a jury trial, but it all comes down to the evidence. You got to have 100 pieces of evidence that you want to get in. You may get 60, you may get all 100. Right. But you never know which piece of evidence is going to really be determined of the decision. And I find that to be always the thing after interviewing a jury. And I said, hey, you know, if I had shown you this, would you have ruled this way or that way? And you'd be shocked. The answer. So it's like a puzzle, right? And you're putting the pieces of evidence and your closing argument is putting the puzzle together. And I think you can win or lose on a closing argument.

[Kayla Brantley]

So very political answer. I'll take that. All right, well, thank you so much, Thomas. It was nice chatting with you. So that's it for today. We'll be back with a new episode next Wednesday. The Trial USA is part of the Crime Desk. Subscribers can listen ad free, get early access to new shows, full access to the archive, and the member only podcast the trial. Plus visit thecrimedesk.com to find out more. A link is in the show Notes. Follow us on TikTok at the crime Desk and on Instagram at the Trial Pod. Leave a comment on Apple podcasts or Spotify or send us a voice note on WhatsApp [phone]. Start your message by with the word trial.

[Mom (Verizon Ad)]

Hey honey, it's Mom. Did you know if we switch to Verizon, we can get four phones for $0 plus four lines for $25 a line? Call me back. Me again. That's just $100 a month for four lines on unlimited welcome. Plus four phones. No trade in needed. Call me. It's Mom. America's best network. Verizon. That's the one we're talking about. I'll send you text.

[Verizon Network Ad]

America's best network based on RootMetric's best overall mobile network performance. US second half 2025. Four new lines and a limited welcome and autopay. See verizon.com for details.

[Hayden]

Howdy, howdy ho, and welcome to Fantasy Fan.

[Stephen (Smash Daddy)]

Fellas.

[Hayden]

I'm Hayden, producer of the Fantasy Fangirls podcast and your resident lover of all things Sanderson.

[Stephen (Smash Daddy)]

And I'm Stephen, your bookish Internet goofball, but you can call me the Smash Daddy.

[Hayden]

And we are currently deep diving Brandon Sanderson's fantasy epic Mistborn. But here's the catch. Steven here has not read Mistborn before.

[Stephen (Smash Daddy)]

That's right.

[Thomas H. Herndon, Jr.]

Hey.

[Stephen (Smash Daddy)]

Hey. So each week you'll get my unfiltered raw reactions to every single chapter.

[Hayden]

And along the way, we'll do character deep dives, magic explainers, and Steven will even try to guess what's next. Spoiler alert he'll be wrong.

[Stephen (Smash Daddy)]

News flash. I'm never wrong. Episodes come out every Wednesday, and you can find Fantasy fan fellas wherever you get your podcasts.

[Acast Announcer]

ACAST powers the world's best podcasts. Here's a show that we recommend

[Kayla Brantley]

A

[Molly Graham]

lot of work advice. Sounds good in theory, but falls apart when you actually try to use it. I'm on a mission to change that. I'm Molly Graham, a company builder and the new host of Work Life, a podcast from ted. I've spent my career inside fast growing companies, and one thing I know for sure is that work is messy. But in this new season, I'm excited to share my conversations with founders, operators and creatives about the real story behind their shiniest successes. The lessons that no one ever posts on LinkedIn. Listen now on Work Life Wherever you get your podcasts.

[Acast Announcer]

ACAST helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast.com.