It Ends With Evidence? Justin Baldoni Brings Receipts Addressing Blake Lively Sexual Harassment Allegations

The complaint makes a series of serious allegations, including sexual harassment during the production of It Ends With Us and retaliation against Lively for raising concerns about a hostile and unsafe work environment by launching a smear campaign against her.

Lively’s 80-page complaint was heavy on allegations but light on evidence—at least publicly, for now. As complaints of this sort are typically precursors to lawsuits (she has in fact officially sued Justin Baldoni as of December 31), more receipts from Lively may emerge to affirm her version of events. Her characterization of Baldoni as a sex-crazed, pornography-addicted male feminist in wolf’s clothing was damning for the actor-director who had made a name for himself as a feminist ally who deconstructed toxic masculinity.

Baldoni, however, soon followed (law) suit just ten days later with his own 87-page, $250 million lawsuit against The New York Times for libel, false light invasion of privacy, promissory fraud, and breach of implied-in-fact contract. A second lawsuit filed against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and her publicist Leslie Sloane accuses them of committing defamation among other crimes for $400 million.

Below, we break down the explicit contradictions between Lively’s allegations and the evidence Baldoni has presented to defend himself. 

Baldoni Claims Lively Misrepresented Birthing Video as Pornography

Lively waged serious allegations against co-star and director Justin Baldoni and lead producer and Wayfarer Studios CEO Jamey Heath, accusing them of repeatedly entering her makeup trailer uninvited while she was undressed, including when she was breastfeeding. Lively claims she “did not expect or consent to anyone entering her private spaces while topless, exposed, and vulnerable with her newborn, or during body makeup application or removal.”

In Baldoni’s defamation suit against The Times, he presents screenshots of text messages that paint a very different story. On June 3, 2023, Lively texted Baldoni, “I'm just pumping in my trailer if you wanna work out our lines” to which Baldoni responded, “copy. eating with crew and will head that way.” Contesting the narrative that either Baldoni or Heath would enter her trailer of their own volition while she was breastfeeding, Baldoni claims that breastfeeding was something Lively was comfortable openly doing in the presence of both men, including during production meetings. The text exchange attached reveals that Lively is the one who invited Baldoni to her trailer while she was pumping breast milk; not the other way around. This wasn’t the only occasion, either, he claims.

(source: pg 25 of lawsuit)

As for the claim that Heath walked into Lively’s trailer unannounced while in a state of undress and topless, Baldoni’s lawsuit claims that Heath was also invited into Lively’s trailer on this occasion, along with a female producer, Baldoni, and a Sony representative for a meeting that Lively had requested. “Mr. Heath arrived first to see if Lively was ready for the meeting, and after knocking and being invited in, saw that Lively was breastfeeding. She was not topless. she was having makeup removed from her collar bone while fully-covered.” 

Baldoni’s lawsuit also alleges that Heath even asked if they should return at a later time, but that Lively assured him that wasn’t necessary and they could move forward with the meeting after she finished having her makeup removed. Two weeks later, Baldoni reportedly noticed a marked shift in Lively's blasé attitude towards this sort of exposure around the crew. Lively claimed she had caught Heath making eye contact with her while her body makeup was being removed, for which he apologized and insisted he hadn't realized he was looking her way. She responded, according to Baldoni's lawsuit, "I know you weren't trying to cop a look." Baldoni says this incident, which she laughed off at the time, conveniently popped up months later—out of context—in a document The Times published as fact.

Baldoni's suit also alleges that The Times article, based on Lively's CRD complaint, advanced sensational claims against Jamey Heath that he had shown Lively an unsolicited "pornographic" video. Baldoni contests this characterization of what was apparently a home birth video of Heath's wife with zero sexual overtone. Heath was allegedly showing Lively the "deeply personal" video, as part of a creative discussion in preparation for a birthing scene in the film, which Heath assured Lively his wife had given permission to show. A still from the footage was provided for context as evidence, showing Heath and his wife submerged in a bathtub, holding their newborn child.

(source: pg. 24 of lawsuit)

Baldoni Disputes Lively’s Account of Birthing Scene Filming Conditions

Lively then alleged some nefarious predatory actions on behalf of both Baldoni and Heath, who she claims pressured her to simulate full nudity in a birthing scene despite no mention of it in the script. When she resisted, she claims Baldoni and Heath insisted it wasn't normal to give birth in a hospital gown and Baldoni recalled his wife ripping her clothes off during labor. Feeling forced to oblige their demands, she agreed to a compromise—she would be naked from below the chest down. However, that was only the start of her troubles with the scene.

She claims filming the scene was even more uncomfortable and invasive, which made her feel unsafe. “When the birth scene was filmed, the set was chaotic, crowded and utterly lacking in standard industry protections for filming nude scenes—such as choreographing the scene with an intimacy coordinator, having a signed nudity rider, or simply turning off the monitors so the scene was not broadcast to all crew on set (and on their personal phones and iPads)” Lively claims in her complaint. 

Because Baldoni and Heath failed to close the set, Lively claims, non-essential crew were passing through during filming of the scene that involved Lively being mostly nude, with her legs spread open and propped up on stirrups and genitalia covered with only a small piece of fabric. She felt it was curious timing that Steve Sarowitz, co-chairman of Wayfarer Studios, flew in for one of few on-set visits and was among the non-essential crew present on set that day, especially as she allegedly wasn’t given anything to cover herself with between takes even though she’d made multiple requests.

The man hired to play the OBGYN—a character whose face and hands would be close to Lively for such an intimate role—according to Lively, was a personal friend of Baldoni's. Lively thought this was strange, as ordinarily a role of this nature would go to a local actor. It was during filming of this scene that Lively alleges Heath showed her the birthing video of his wife to her and her assistant.

Baldoni refutes Lively's recounting of events during the birthing scene, that she was “mostly nude with her legs spread wide in stirrups and only a small piece of fabric covering her genitalia,” or that there were "non-essential persons" on set. Contrary to Lively's description of being naked from below the chest down, Baldoni says she was actually wearing black briefs and a pregnancy suit that covered her midsection, along with the additional coverage of a hospital gown that obscured her top.

Baldoni asserts that the decision to include a footnote in Lively's complaint that says, "Generally, nudity below the waist in film utilizes a small piece of nude fabric glued around the female actor's genitalia to provide some minimal privacy without disturbing the shot (because that fabric is not able to have visible straps from profile camera angles)" was meant to mislead the reader to believe she was only wearing this small fabric.

To the contrary, he asserts that Lively was aware of the circumstances of the birthing scene, as she was heavily involved in the writing and creative process in crafting it, against his own creative vision. Baldoni claims that Lively is lying about the film's set during this scene being chaotic and that non-essential personnel, such as the film's financier, were present or watching her nude. Baldoni boldly claims that he was not even on set during this scene in any capacity and only briefly stopped by later, during a scene that had Lively fully clothed and speaking to a female OBGYN.

Did Blake Lively Mischaracterize Justin Baldoni’s Comments on Her Appearance & Alleged Sexual Objectification?

Lively describes Baldoni in her lawsuit as someone who constantly sexualized her, even overtly referring to her as “sexy” while out of character, while she was playing a victim of domestic violence in his film. Baldoni countered these claims by insisting Lively set the tone for creative discussions and he merely followed her lead. Text messages appear to reveal that Lively was the one who first referred to her character as “sexy.” Screenshots appear to show that Lively texted Baldoni on May 17, 2023, “will show you both ways but beanie is much sexier. it’s the look. feels tv without it. especially with a crop top in the snow. it justifies the rest of the skin. and also is a girl i would check out walking down the street because it washes the effort off the rest of the look.” When Baldoni later used the same verbiage Lively had set the precedent for, she misrepresented his comments as objectification rather than creative input, he claims.

However, Lively claims it wasn’t an isolated incident—that Baldoni made her feel uncomfortable throughout filming by repeatedly commenting on her appearance, age, and weight in ways that oscillated between sexualization and criticism. On one occasion, she recalls wearing a low-cut dress to facilitate breastfeeding which she kept covered with a coat. She says she became flustered when Baldoni commented approvingly on her outfit after a button popped open to reveal her dress. The same day, Lively alleges that Baldoni pressured her to ditch the coat, despite being dressed in pre-approved wardrobe, in front of eight members of crew and multiple background actors, in a crowded bar. 

Lively’s version of events asserts Baldoni said he wanted to see her "onesie" beneath her coat, as it was zipped low to reveal her lace bra. This is when Lively claims Baldoni ogled her, remarking, "I think you look good" in front of other female cast members. She alleges she told him that wasn't what she was going for, so he cheekily corrected himself, "I'm sorry, hot." Getting upset, Lively reportedly said that wasn't what she was going for either, to which Baldoni sarcastically responded "I guess I missed the HR meeting," and walked off. Lively alleges similar behavior occurred to other cast members and that as a result of his behavior on set on May 29, 2023, another cast member lodged a sexual harassment complaint over his "gross and unwanted comments" towards her and others. 

When paparazzi photos of Lively in character on the set of IEWU circulated online, prompting social media comments on her appearance, Baldoni reportedly had an outburst in her dressing room. Seeing that people were saying she looked old and unattractive, Lively claims Baldoni cried in her dressing room for hours, which caused delays in shooting and haphazard execution of an emotional scene. Despite Lively allegedly trying to reassure Baldoni that her character needs to be a faithful portrayal of domestic abuse victims, he seemed overly preoccupied with her character’s sex appeal and hotness. 

Baldoni Brings the Receipts: Was Lively the One Who Wanted Her Character to Be Sexy?

Baldoni’s account of this incident is a stark contrast from Lively’s. While he admits to saying she looked sexy, he claims she omitted crucial context that misconstrued his creative direction about her character’s wardrobe as personal objectification. The scene they were shooting involved all the characters to wear onesies, Baldoni claims, and since Lively opted to wear a large coat over hers which obscured her outfit, he made a suggestion, as the film's director, that she remove it. He claims Lively misrepresented his “hot” comment, which wasn’t about her at all. Lively was wearing a buttoned jacket in a bar that was 90 degrees with no air conditioning and he made the remark “it will be hot” (meaning the bar, not Lively.) 

In an attempt to get her to take direction, he concedes to telling her the outfit would be sexier without the coat—a character choice Lively previously said she wanted, as documented in personal texts between the two. Despite giving Lively professional direction as the film’s director in accordance with her previous verbalized vision, she appeared to take the comment personally. Realizing he upset her, Baldoni claims he apologized, even though his comments were strictly professional. He notes another time Lively allegedly described her shoes as “sexy” to an all male cast and crew while filming a restaurant scene. Both of these incidents, Baldoni alleges in his $400 million lawsuit against Lively, are on camera, and “demonstrates how ludicrous and deliberately malicious Lively’s allegations are.” A text exchange between the two of them is attached where they seemingly discuss shooting this scene with the jacket. 

(source: pg. 26 of lawsuit)

Baldoni Claims Lively Refused to Meet Intimacy Coordinator & Weaponized This Against Him in Accusatory Document

Perhaps the most serious allegations of sexual harassment alleged by Lively is that Baldoni took advantage of his position of power as Director to put her in compromising positions. Lively’s complaint alleges he “ignored well-established industry protocols in filming intimate scenes, and exploited the lack of controls on set to behave inappropriately.” This inappropriate behavior included improvised kissing scenes and bypassing guild rules concerning nudity riders, intimacy coordinators, ensuring a safe work environment free from coercion, and providing appropriate notification and consent requirements for nudity or simulated sex scenes. 

“Without these protections in place, Mr. Baldoni improvised physical intimacy that had not been rehearsed, choreographed, or discussed with Ms. Lively, with no intimacy coordinator involved.” On this basis, Lively makes a series of allegations that paint a picture of ongoing, continuous harassment both verbal and physical. Among the inappropriate behavior, she claims he made crass, unsolicited comments about his sex life, pornography addiction, previous sexual encounters (including ones that he did not get informed consent for), and pressured Lively to speak about her own sex life. Lively also claims that Baldoni improvised kissing scenes that had not been previously agreed to, then insisted on continuously re-shooting said scenes. 

In Baldoni’s lawsuit against The Times, however, he claims that not only had he hired an intimacy coordinator, but that Lively’s refusal to meet with her put him in an awkward, convoluted position—having to meet with the coordinator himself and relay the plans for the film’s sex scenes to Lively separately. A text from Baldoni to Lively reads, “just hired intimacy coordinator who I love. will set you up to meet/ft with her next week for intro." Lively seemingly blows off the meeting, responding, “I feel good. I can meet her when we start :) thank you though!” 

Another text reveals Baldoni forwarding this exchange to a female Producer where he mentions that it seems she doesn’t want to meet the intimacy coordinator. "just wanted to tell you about this- seems she doesn't want to meet intimacy coordinator until we start which may mess up the workflow, but i can still meet with her of course,” Baldoni said. The unnamed female Producer replied, “that's fine if she doesn't want to meet her now. you'll just have to walk her through what you and [intimacy coordinator] are thinking.” 

(source: pg. 27 of lawsuit)

Baldoni argues Lively's account of improvised, unwanted kissing and inappropriate remarks about his sex life is manipulative and misleading. He claims she complained and weaponized situations entirely of her own making. Namely, that she refused to work with the intimacy coordinator he had hired, forcing him to meet with her alone and later relay her notes to Lively, which not only defeated the purpose of the intimacy coordinator, but put him at risk of Lively’s [alleged] dishonest framing. 

The source of the “inappropriate remarks” about his sex life, he maintains, was only part of the creative, collaborative process in developing their characters, and at the explicit guidance of the intimacy coordinator. Baldoni claims that Lively curiously insisted on meeting at her penthouse to sketch out their sex scenes, absent the intimacy coordinator (but often with her husband present), who she declined to meet with. Baldoni says this put him in an awkward position that resulted in accusations published by The Times that Baldoni was adding in gratuitous sex scenes when in reality, those scenes were proposed by the intimacy coordinator, and cites hand-written notes he reportedly took during those meetings.

In Baldoni’s second lawsuit in which he is suing Lively, he claims that she declined the intimacy coordinator's proposals to rewrite the scenes herself and later used these circumstances "created entirely by her" to accuse Baldoni of insisting Lively do uncomfortable and gratuitous scenes. He claims that this is just one of many instances where she distorts the very typical work of a filmmaker involving scenes of intimacy as being a personal one. 

The Protections for Return to Production Document: Was It Extortion?

Here’s where Baldoni claims things got really sinister. Lively sent a protection letter right after the [writer’s] strikes ended, demanding 17 conditions be met before she would return to work. This letter insinuated Baldoni and Heath acted inappropriately by [according to Baldoni] misrepresenting communications between the three, and demanded to be signed, as is, even though the insinuations contained within them suggested conceding guilt to events that he insists never occurred. Her "conditions" included inflammatory and accusatory language such as "no more showing nude videos or images of women, including producer's wife to BL and/or her employees," which of course implied that this behavior was already pre-existing.

Likewise, the condition that scenes be choreographed with an intimacy coordinator completely discounted the reality that Baldoni had already hired and implemented one before filming even began, who Lively declined to meet. Wayfarer disagreed as to the basis for requesting these conditions, but since the terms were agreeable and already being met, they reluctantly agreed to sign out of necessity, citing the millions of dollars and multiple years already invested in bringing the already half-completed film to life.

Baldoni claims he and Wayfarer thought by signing the document, they could get back to work without any more issues, but they were mistaken. Baldoni describes the document as "calculating and extortionist," in its insinuations and accuses Lively of defamation. 

Baldoni claims in his second lawsuit [where he addresses each of the 17 points of the Protections for Return to Production document point by point] that the intimacy coordinator issue came up as the first point in this document, demanding there be an intimacy coordinator present on set at all times. As previously stated, Baldoni maintains that he had employed an intimacy coordinator. He provides a timeline that asserts he first met with the intimacy coordinator months before filming and that she was engaged over 6 weeks before production started. Lively was not only aware of the intimacy coordinator when she later implied there was none, says Baldoni, but communications between he and Lively show in writing that Wayfarer provided Lively with an intimacy coordinator-approved Nudity Writer, along with a written confirmation of approval.

The Fat Shaming Incident

Lively claims Baldoni found other backchannel ways of commenting on her age and appearance, including secretly asking her personal trainer how much she weighs. On another occasion, she says Baldoni referred her to an expert he kept on retainer to help her with her strep throat only to later find out that she was misled about the nature of their work, as the expert turned out to be a weight loss specialist. 

Baldoni denies Lively’s fat shaming allegations and describes the incident as a reasonable inquiry into crucial information needed to avoid injury due to his pre-existing back problems. Baldoni reportedly has multiple bulging discs and needed to lift Lively in a scene. Baldoni’s only intention in inquiring about Lively’s weight was to ensure safety, he says—not to shame the actress, who had recently given birth, for her weight. However, when the trainer relayed this information to Lively, who then told her husband, Ryan Reynolds, tensions escalated. Baldoni recalls being “aggressively berated” in the couples’ penthouse in front of other celebrity guests—a decision he believes was intended to mortify him. 

After this aggressive display, Baldoni says he felt compelled to repeatedly apologize despite the misinterpretation of his intentions, which had been made in good faith. Lively then refused to do the lifting scene, which Baldoni says had already been rehearsed with a stunt double, and, despite her contractual obligations, threatened to quit the production altogether. He says she then dishonestly claimed in her CRD complaint that no such scene existed, leaving out that she and her husband Reynolds ensured it was removed from the film. 

Per Baldoni’s lawsuit, “Lively gave Baldoni an ultimatum: to either cast someone else or work with her in the way she works. It was her way or the highway.” With so much at stake—Baldoni claims recasting would have jeopardized the production and cost millions by severing Wayfarer’s relationship with Sony—and following what he describes as a humiliating beratement, Baldoni continued capitulating to Lively’s demands in an effort to avoid further conflict and mend their working relationship. "to highlight the effects of masterful gaslighting, baldoni and wayfarer also truly believed that in an effort to save herself from the backlash of being re-cast, lively could leak that she felt 'fat shamed' by baldoni” – something he worried had the potential to ruin his career.

Baldoni’s Rebuttal to “Gratuitous” Improvised Intimate Scenes: They Came From Intimacy Coordinator

Some of the gratuitous scenes Lively accused Baldoni of adding included inserting explicit sexual content involving Lively's character orgasming on camera. Lively claims she had joined the film based on the draft of the script she had looked over, but that Baldoni later inserted this scene without her prior knowledge or agreement. In objecting to the idea, Baldoni allegedly used the excuse that he was making the film through the “female gaze.” Baldoni allegedly agreed to remove the scenes Lively objected to but fought to keep one involving simultaneous climaxes between their characters. This was a scene he said was important to him because he and his partner climax together, and asked if she and her partner do the same—a question she felt was inappropriate and intrusive. 

Baldoni, however, accuses Lively of distorting this reference to the female gaze in her CRD complaint. The female gaze, he claims, was a reference to his intention that sex scenes be written with input from both the intimacy coordinator and Lively so that he could capture the female perspective of sexuality that would speak to a mostly female audience. Baldoni claims the intimacy coordinator proposed that Ryle not orgasm after he satisfies Lily, to which Lively responded, "I'd be mortified if that happened to me." Baldoni interpreted this as an invitation to connect and develop their characters and remarked that "those have been some of the most beautiful moments with [my wife] and I." 

Additional context is offered in Baldoni’s second lawsuit, alleging the interaction took place during a creative meeting requested by Lively to take place at her home (instead of her meeting with the intimacy coordinator). This is one of the times Baldoni says he relayed his notes from the intimacy coordinator to her, which included a suggestion that Lily (Lively's character) orgasm during the scene, as similarly described in the book. Lively resisted, saying "oh no, I'm too old for that," to which Baldoni offered up another suggestion instead, which also came from his intimacy coordinator notes, and then moved on. 

In another instance of scene development, Lively remarked, "I don't want [the scene] to look like porn," Baldoni claims, and then [she] mentioned that she had never seen porn in her life. In response, Baldoni allegedly complimented her, saying "that's wonderful," because he had been exposed to it at a young age and regrettably struggled with an addiction to adult content for a period of his life. He had openly spoken about this before in his books, where he scrutinizes pornography as a societal problem. Baldoni says that Lively later distorted this exchange in the protections document she made Wayfarer, Heath, and Baldoni sign, and in her CRD complaint, which The Times published as fact.

Baldoni cites this as one of many examples where Lively trapped him by bringing up intimate, personal details so she could point to his response as an example of acting inappropriate with her, as well as weaponizing his reputation [as a male feminist ally who holds men accountable] against him. Baldoni adds, "Heath, who had nothing to do with this exchange and has never had a porn addiction or even mentioned porn in Lively's presence, was falsely and knowingly lumped into this accusation."

While shooting a slow dance scene that contained no audio, Lively claims that Baldoni began acting as himself, not as his character Ryle. Lively’s complaint reads, “at one point, he leaned forward and slowly dragged his lips from her ear and down her neck as he said, ‘it smells so good.’ none of this was remotely in character, or based on any dialogue in the script, and nothing needed to be said because, again, there was no sound.” During this scene, Lively says Baldoni was caressing her with his mouth in a way that had nothing to do with their roles. Lively claims she objected to this infraction and that Baldoni told her he “wasn’t even attracted to her.” 

Baldoni provides a starkly different account of the scene, describing it as a romance montage set to music for a slow dance between their characters. He claims Lively repeatedly broke character by talking out of turn, insisting she liked the idea of constant dialogue because she and her husband "can never stop talking." Baldoni claims Lively was unable to take direction from himself or the assistant director to stay in character, and continued speaking as herself. He claims she even tried to direct him during the scene. When Baldoni responded to her incessant talking about her own relationship with an anecdote about how he and his wife look into each other's eyes silently (to encourage silence), Lively joked, “like sociopaths,” and continued her back-and-forth.

Baldoni reportedly tried to guide her back into character, but her out-of-character talking frustrated producers, who instructed Baldoni to get her to stop so they could get the shot. One of Lively's in-scene remarks was reportedly an apology for the smell of her spray tan and body makeup, to which Baldoni responded, "it smells good," then continued acting and dancing as he believed his character would with his partner, involving some physical touching. Lively reportedly took them out of character again to make a crass joke about Baldoni’s nose, suggesting he should get plastic surgery.

Even though this is a point of insecurity he has previously spoken publicly about on his podcast in reference to having body dysmorphia, he reportedly laughed it off. Despite Lively's claim that the scene was filmed without sound, Baldoni asserts that he was wearing a microphone, and that the entire exchange, including her remarks about Baldoni needing a rhinoplasty, was captured on camera.

Baldoni’s legal team made good on their promise to leak video evidence to support his claims, releasing a ten minute reel of this entire exchange to the media. It appears to support Baldoni’s version of events, and paradoxically, Lively’s, depending on your perspective. Lively’s team released a statement insisting the video only affirms Lively’s allegations that Baldoni acted inappropriately while out of character, raising questions about interactions being misrepresented vs misinterpreted. 

In isolation, the exchange seems like a hodgepodge of misunderstandings characteristic of the gray areas of acting alongside an actor who is also the director. Within the broader context of Baldoni’s allegations and evidence however, it fits into Baldoni’s narrative that Lively displayed a pattern of calculated behavior. On the other hand, Baldoni’s apparent inability to establish boundaries or assert authority suggests he could have played a hand in these miscommunications.

As for allegations of unchoreographed kissing? Baldoni insists this allegation is nothing more than projection, for it was Lively who allegedly initiated unchoreographed kissing—not him. Lively repeatedly initiated unchoreographed kisses during takes at her discretion, changing the number of kisses within takes at her whim. According to Baldoni’s lawsuit against Lively, this is captured on camera.

Baldoni, a seasoned actor with extensive experience in romantic roles, treated these scenes professionally and was reportedly accustomed to rehearsing or filming scenes multiple times, often with variations, without needing "permission" while in character. While Lively now cries foul at any alleged improvisation by Baldoni, he claims he would have no way of knowing based on her own behavior. Baldoni also alleges that Lively lied about inappropriate and improvised kissing that took place before the strike break. He says only two kissing scenes were filmed during this period and both were executed as written with no improvisations.

Baldoni also responded to Lively's second point on her protections document—that there be a closed set during rehearsal/filming of any intimate scenes and observation via remote monitors be restricted to essential personnel, to be further described in a fully negotiated and executed SAG-compliant nudity rider. He claims that while Lively was provided a nudity rider early in production, she did not request a closed set, but production reportedly adhered to this practice regardless. Baldoni also clarifies that no intimacy scenes were filmed prior to the strike break or Lively's return to production demands, making it impossible for scenes to have been shot without a nudity rider. 

The stipulation in the grievance document that “any footage previously shot without the Nudity Rider in place” was also misleading, as no simulated sex scenes had been filmed yet. The only simulated nude scene that had been filmed was one she had written, planned, and directed herself, with the understanding of when it was being filmed and without the request of a nudity rider or intimacy coordinator.

Baldoni further argues that although Lively was given the nudity rider on May 8, 2023, with a deadline to sign by May 11, her team stalled, fixating instead on her fee, and never signed. Wayfarer's counsel repeatedly followed up without success. Months later, Baldoni says the demand for a nudity rider was erroneously listed in Lively’s 17-point grievance list, incorrectly attributing its absence to Wayfarer.

Closing Thoughts

With both parties filing lawsuits left and right, this is certainly not the end of this heated legal dispute. While Baldoni has so far been the one to provide documented evidence, screenshots of text messages, and video recordings, there may still be more to the story we’ve yet to see. However, it’s not been a good few weeks for Lively’s public image, leading some to wonder if dragging out this legal matter is even a smart move for her. 

Baldoni’s team has made a show of strength and confidence, with his lawyer Bryan Freedman making the rounds on Megyn Kelly’s show to insist that they are going to be fully transparent about their case, going so far as to vow they will publish every single text message between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni so people can judge for themselves whether they think Baldoni’s guilty of what he’s been accused of.