By Dustin Rowles | News | January 16, 2025 |
Justin Baldoni has filed a $400 million lawsuit against Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds, citing seven causes of action, including defamation and civil extortion. The 179-page complaint largely reiterates claims previously made by Baldoni and his team: that Lively hijacked the film’s edit, Ryan Reynolds rewrote scenes during the WGA strike, Lively promoted her alcohol brand alongside a domestic violence film, Lively and Reynolds forced Baldoni to watch the premiere from a basement, and that Lively orchestrated a coordinated character assassination against him.
Baldoni also alleges that Lively fabricated sexual harassment claims in retaliation after facing backlash for her promotional campaign. He claims she reframed routine production discussions as malicious and collaborated with The New York Times for months to craft a false narrative before her own legal filings.
Additionally, Baldoni accuses Reynolds of calling his talent agency and labeling him a “sexual predator.” He also claims Lively’s publicist falsely accused him of sexual assault and alleges that the couple orchestrated the cast and author unfollowing him on social media to create an impression of misconduct. However, the evidence regarding the unfollowing is circumstantial, with no communications or direct testimony from cast members supporting a coordinated effort. Notably, the only cast member mentioned in the filing besides Lively is Isabela Ferrer, who once texted Baldoni during filming to express gratitude for her role, hardly evidence that the cast widely liked Baldoni.
The extortion claim is unexpected but significant. Baldoni asserts that Lively and Reynolds used threats and coercion to wrest creative control from him. He alleges that Lively made escalating demands and that the couple threatened to destroy his reputation if he didn’t comply, warning him that the “gloves would come off” if he didn’t take responsibility for unspecified mistakes.
Legally, the extortion claim may hold more weight than the defamation claim, as Baldoni, being a public figure, must meet the high standard of proving “actual malice” for defamation. For extortion, however, he would need to demonstrate that Lively’s actions crossed the line from aggressive negotiation into illegality. With all due respect, fake feminist allies would probably characterize aggressive negotiations as extortion.
The crux of Baldoni’s complaint lies in a 17-point list of demands Lively made after the WGA strike, including restrictions on physical contact or comments about her appearance, prohibiting discussion of personal sexual experiences, barring entry to her trailer while she was undressed, requiring proper nudity riders, and mandating additional oversight on set through a Sony representative and a new producer. Baldoni argues these demands were fabricated to establish a paper trail implying misconduct, laying the groundwork for extortion.
Lively’s counterclaim alleges that Baldoni and his PR team smeared her as retaliation for the demands. Baldoni, in turn, asserts that the demands were baseless and part of a calculated effort to undermine him. However, this theory assumes Lively engaged in preemptive planning during filming to use the demands strategically if things fell apart months later, a four-dimensional chess leap that borders on the absurd.
Another issue is Baldoni’s decision to sign the 17-point document. He claims he did so under duress, fearing production shutdown and recasting if he refused. While Baldoni asserts that he attempted to revise the demands, the complaint offers no evidence—such as emails or drafts—indicating he pushed back, which is notable considering the number of documents, emails, and texts he otherwise provided in the complaint.
Interestingly, the complaint omits any reference to the Nicepool character from Deadpool and Wolverine, which Baldoni previously suggested was modeled after him. If true, Baldoni’s behavior — as implied by Lively’s demands — could align with the traits of Nicepool, inadvertently bolstering Lively’s case. The character, if anything, underscores why the demands were necessary and, by extension, why Baldoni may have felt compelled to retaliate by hiring a crisis PR firm to destroy Lively’s reputation.