Blake Lively backed by advocacy groups in legal fight with Justin Baldoni over #MeToo speech law
- Share via
Blake Lively’s push to dismiss Justin Baldoni’s defamation countersuit is drawing support from several advocacy groups, who say the case threatens a hard-won legal protection for people who speak out about sexual harassment and misconduct.
Equal Rights Advocates, a San Francisco–based legal nonprofit that advocates for gender equity and workplace protections, filed an amicus brief on Tuesday urging a federal judge to uphold Lively’s motion and defend California’s new free-speech law protecting those who speak publicly about sexual misconduct. A separate letter of interest was also filed by Elyse Dorsey, a former federal employee and sexual harassment survivor, who described being sued for defamation after speaking out and said the law at issue could have spared her a years-long legal ordeal. Additional briefs are expected in the coming days from advocacy groups including Child USA and Sanctuary for Families.
The briefs mark the latest salvo in a months-long legal clash between Lively and Baldoni, whose bitter dispute stemming from the production of last year’s romantic drama “It Ends With Us” has played out in court and the press.
Asked about the briefs, a spokesperson for Lively said in a statement that Baldoni was “trying to end the nation’s only ‘MeToo’ law as ‘unconstitutional’” and accused him and his co-defendants of being “so focused on trying to harm Ms. Lively that they are willing to shred a law designed to protect all victims just to make sure they ‘bury’ one.’” The statement added that Lively “will continue to use her voice to speak up for justice on behalf of herself and others.”
Lively has accused Baldoni, her co-star and the film’s director, of harassing her during filming, citing improvised on-set physical contact, inappropriate conduct and alleged retaliation after she raised concerns — claims he has denied. Advocates say her case highlights the kind of public allegations that the law was meant to protect, and warn that a ruling against her could chill speech around harassment.
“If the law were to be struck down, it wouldn’t just affect Blake Lively — it would essentially do away with the protections for all survivors,” said Jessica Schidlow, legal director at Child USA, a nonprofit that advocates for stronger protections for abuse survivors. “It would be a devastating setback and completely undermine the purpose of the law, which was to make it easier for victims to come forward and to speak their truth without fear of retaliation.”
Blake Lively has filed a motion to dismiss Justin Baldoni’s defamation countersuit, arguing that California law protects individuals who report sexual misconduct allegations from retaliatory legal action.
Lively invoked the law — California Civil Code Section 47.1, enacted in 2023 as part of Assembly Bill 933 — in a motion filed in March to dismiss Baldoni’s $400-million countersuit, which alleges she falsely accused him of harassment and retaliation and tried to wrest control of the film from him.
Baldoni’s legal team has strongly opposed the dismissal motion, arguing that Lively’s accusations were knowingly false and that the statute she invoked is itself unconstitutional. They argue the law goes too far by threatening steep financial penalties, saying it could discourage people from going to court to defend themselves against false accusations.
“In no event, on this Motion or at any stage of this proceeding, will the First Amendment permit the extreme and unconstitutional award of fees, costs and treble and punitive damages Lively demands,” the filing states.
That position drew a sharp response from Victoria Burke, an attorney who helped push for AB 933 and is now leading efforts to pass similar legislation in 16 other states.
“I was highly disappointed with that move,” said Burke, who is filing her own amicus brief in the case. “He’s put himself out there as a feminist, and this undoes a lot of the good he had been doing. It just seemed cruel and unnecessary — to try to destroy a law that was designed to protect all survivors, just to go after one.”
The Blake Lively-Justin Baldoni legal drama highlights conflicting claims about the tactics used by powerful celebrity attorneys on behalf of their clients.
AB 933 was designed to shield people who speak out about sexual harassment, assault or discrimination from retaliatory defamation suits, provided their statements weren’t made with “actual malice.” It also includes a fee-shifting provision that requires unsuccessful plaintiffs to pay legal costs and allows for treble and punitive damages.
In a March 4 filing in federal court in New York, Lively’s attorneys argued that Baldoni’s countersuit is precisely the kind of retaliation that California’s new law was meant to prevent.
“The law prohibits weaponizing defamation lawsuits, like this one, to retaliate against individuals who have filed legal claims or have publicly spoken out about sexual harassment and retaliation,” the brief states.
The case marks the first major test of AB 933 since it was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October 2023. The outcome could set an early precedent for how far courts are willing to go in upholding the law — and what protections it ultimately provides for those who speak out about alleged misconduct.
“As more survivors came forward, the people who harmed them were increasingly using defamation lawsuits as weapons to try to silence them,” said Jessica Stender, deputy legal director at Equal Rights Advocates, one of the organizations that co-sponsored AB 933. “When you see high-profile cases, like the Amber Heard–Johnny Depp case or in this case Blake Lively — survivors without money or fame are scared when they see what can happen to even a rich and famous person, and think, ‘That could happen to me, and I can’t take that chance.’”
The actor-director built a career blending his Bahai values and storytelling. Now allegations involving Blake Lively and ‘It Ends With Us’ threaten his image.
Lively’s team, in a May 13 reply brief, defended the law’s constitutionality and reiterated that her public statements were protected under AB 933.
“The First Amendment empowers legislatures to protect victims’ First Amendment rights via fee-shifting rules designed to deter retaliatory litigation,” her attorneys wrote.
The court has not yet ruled on Lively’s motion to dismiss. If granted, it could deal a significant blow to Baldoni’s countersuit — and shape how AB 933 is interpreted in future cases involving public allegations of misconduct.
As other states look to adopt similar legislation, advocates say the outcome of the case could have ripple effects far beyond California.
“We want to be able to ensure that there is a social and legal environment where you can speak your truth and report sexual assault and harassment without fear of being sued,” said Dorchen Leidholdt, senior director of legal services at Sanctuary for Families, a New York–based nonprofit that provides legal and support services to survivors of gender-based violence. “Legal retaliatory actions like the one brought by Mr. Baldoni and his team are doing enormous damage to victims, not just in California but across the country — affecting not only celebrity victims, but ordinary people.”
Only good movies
Get the Indie Focus newsletter, Mark Olsen's weekly guide to the world of cinema.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
