FirstAlerts

Judge Awards Blake Lively About $400,000 in Legal Fees in Dismissed Baldoni Lawsuit

A federal judge ordered Justin Baldoni's production company to pay Blake Lively about $400,000 in attorneys' fees and costs after her lawsuit was dismissed.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 26, 2026, 1:51 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 26, 2026, 1:32 p.m. ETWritten Aug 26, 2026, 1:52 p.m. ET
A judge has awarded Blake Lively about $400,000 in attorneys' fees and costs from Justin Baldoni's production company, Wayfarer Studios, according to NBC News. The award includes $363,245.40 in attorneys' fees and $44,206.35 in costs, as reported by NBC News. The fees stem from Lively's lawsuit against Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios, in which she alleged sexual harassment during the production of the 2024 movie "It Ends With Us" and retaliation after she complained about misconduct on set. The lawsuit was dismissed, and the judge has now ordered the production company to cover Lively's legal expenses. The exact nature of the award—whether it is a penalty, disgorgement, or redress—was not specified in the reporting.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 26, 2026, 1:51 p.m. ETFirst report

    Judge Awards Blake Lively About $400,000 in Legal Fees in Dismissed Baldoni Lawsuit

    A judge has awarded Blake Lively about $400,000 in attorneys' fees from Justin Baldoni's production company, according to NBC News. The award includes $363,245.40 in attorneys' fees and $44,206.35 in costs, as reported by NBC News.

    The fees stem from a civil case in which Lively accused Baldoni of sexual harassment during the production of the 2024 movie "It Ends With Us," which he directed. Lively also alleged that Baldoni's company, Wayfarer Studios, retaliated against her after she complained about misconduct on set, according to NBC News.

    The case was adjudicated with the defendants found liable, and the judge's award was issued in a litigation release. The case is ongoing, and further developments may follow.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 126 Aug 2026, 17:51current

    First published.

  2. Version 126 Aug 2026, 17:52current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.