Justin Baldoni’s $250 million lawsuit against The New York Times over a December 2023 article has turned the spotlight back on a complex and controversial episode involving the film It Ends With Us. The lawsuit, filed by Baldoni and other plaintiffs, including publicists Melissa Nathan and Jennifer Abel, accuses the Times of libel and invasion of privacy. The article, titled “‘We Can Bury Anyone’: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine,” focused on alleged sexual harassment claims involving Baldoni and Blake Lively, suggesting a pattern of misconduct during the production of the film.
Baldoni’s legal team argues that the Times article relied on a selective, misleading portrayal of events and communications, particularly text messages between Baldoni and Lively. For instance, the Times reported that Baldoni repeatedly entered Lively’s makeup trailer uninvited while she was undressed, including during breastfeeding, based on an exchange that seemed innocuous in its original context. Lively’s message referenced pumping in her trailer, and Baldoni responded in a professional manner. Baldoni’s lawsuit claims this context was stripped away to support a more sinister narrative.
The lawsuit also pushes back against the central accusations made by Lively in her legal complaint with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD). The plaintiffs claim that Lively’s allegations were exaggerated or even fabricated to justify her demands and gain control over aspects of the production. For example, Lively is accused of using false harassment claims to assert unilateral control, with the suit even alleging that her husband, Ryan Reynolds, aggressively confronted Baldoni over accusations of “fat-shaming” Lively. Reynolds is also alleged to have played a role in pressuring Baldoni’s agency, WME, to drop him as a client.
The lawsuit criticizes The New York Times for relying almost exclusively on Lively’s narrative, which the plaintiffs argue was self-serving and not properly vetted. Additionally, Baldoni’s team contends that the article omitted or misrepresented critical text messages that contradict Lively’s claims. For example, text exchanges between publicists Nathan and Abel, which the Times used to suggest a smear campaign against Lively, were taken out of context, according to the plaintiffs. The full message history paints a different picture, one of publicists who were merely preparing for a worst-case scenario rather than actively orchestrating a smear campaign.
The case has sparked intense scrutiny of the media’s role in shaping public perception, especially in the entertainment industry, where power dynamics and personal conflicts often play out in the public eye. As Baldoni and his team seek to expose the full contents of their communications, the lawsuit also underscores the complexity of Hollywood’s PR machinery and the ways in which personal disputes can escalate into high-profile legal battles.
The Times has stood by its reporting, asserting that the article was based on thorough research, including thousands of pages of documents and text messages, and that it accurately represented the facts. They maintain that the story was “meticulously and responsibly reported” and that no errors have been identified by the plaintiffs thus far. However, the lawsuit calls into question the legitimacy of some of the sources, including how Lively’s legal team obtained the texts in the first place, particularly from a former publicist’s firm.
As the case progresses, it could offer a rare look into the often opaque world of celebrity PR, legal disputes, and the interplay between personal and professional lives in Hollywood.