When actress Blake Lively filed complaints alleging a hostile work environment on the set of It Ends With Us, the backlash came swiftly—from both Hollywood and the courtroom. In a reply brief filed on April 10, 2025, Lively’s attorneys asked a federal judge to dismiss the defamation and business tort claims filed against her by Wayfarer Studios and director Justin Baldoni, calling their $400 million lawsuit “a PR stunt” designed to punish her for speaking out.

Lively’s latest brief is a scorched-earth takedown of the amended complaint. Her team accuses the Wayfarer Parties of shifting legal theories to avoid the statute of limitations and mischaracterizing her speech—much of which, they argue, is protected under multiple legal privileges.

The Case Collapses Under Its Own Contradictions

Central to the reply is an assertion that the Wayfarer Parties have undercut their own case. They previously emphasized Lively’s CRD (California Civil Rights Department) and federal complaints as defamatory. But now, faced with litigation privilege arguments, they’ve pivoted—claiming the defamation stemmed only from public statements made between July and December 2024, before any lawsuit was filed.

Lively’s attorneys use this about-face to argue that most of the amended complaint’s 391 paragraphs—including allegations about the film’s production and internal disputes—are now legally irrelevant. If the plaintiffs exclude the CRD complaint as the basis of their claim, then their malice arguments, rooted in that complaint, become unusable too.

The Missing Smoking Gun

The reply accuses Wayfarer of failing to identify even one specific, actionable statement made by Lively. They cite general media reports and paraphrased quotes about a “PR sabotage operation” or on-set misconduct, but can’t pinpoint when, where, or to whom Lively made these statements.

Worse for plaintiffs, Lively’s team invokes the Single Publication Act, which limits defamation claims to the first publication of a statement. Any statements made before January 17, 2024—including many cited in the press—are time-barred.

Privilege Stacks: Litigation, Fair Report, and Sexual Harassment

Lively also claims immunity under three overlapping legal doctrines:

1. Litigation Privilege: Statements in or related to legal filings (including the CRD complaint) are immune from defamation liability.
2. Fair Report Privilege: Media outlets that accurately report on legal filings cannot be sued—and neither can the original filer for corresponding statements.
3. Sexual Harassment Privilege (Cal. Civ. Code § 47.1): Statements made in good faith about harassment, even to the media or other third parties, are statutorily protected.

Lively’s reply notes that the plaintiffs do not dispute her CRD complaint was privileged. Nor do they explain how any unprivileged statement caused them specific harm. They further concede that she had a reasonable basis to believe harassment occurred and fail to show she knowingly made false statements—essential for proving actual malice.

Guilt by Association Fails

One of the lawsuit’s more controversial tactics is its attempt to hold Lively liable for statements allegedly made by her husband, Ryan Reynolds, and her publicist, Meredith Sloane. Lively fires back sharply: she wasn’t the speaker, she didn’t direct or ratify the statements, and under modern legal standards, she cannot be held liable for what her spouse says.

Even the conspiracy and agency claims fall apart under scrutiny. Lively’s team argues that calling someone a “dragon” in a supportive text isn’t enough to form a legal agency or conspiracy. Nor is sharing a PR firm with her husband and publicist.

Failure Across the Board

The reply systematically dismantles every other cause of action:

• Extortion: Plaintiffs fail to allege a “wrongful threat” or demand for money.
• Breach of Covenant: They improperly introduce new facts in their brief, not the complaint.
• Interference with Contracts: No specific WME contract is identified, and damages are missing.
• Conspiracy: No “meeting of the minds” is alleged—just speculation and frustration.

A Statutory Shield: Defending California’s Section 47.1

Perhaps the boldest portion of the reply is Lively’s defense of California Civil Code § 47.1—a relatively new statute that protects people reporting sexual harassment from defamation suits and allows for fee-shifting and treble damages against retaliatory plaintiffs.

Wayfarer argues the law is unconstitutional, but Lively’s lawyers cite Second Circuit and California precedent upholding similar fee-shifting statutes. They argue that any chilling effect from the statute is far outweighed by the danger of silencing survivors through litigation.

Conclusion

Lively’s reply brief doesn’t just rebut the Wayfarer lawsuit—it reframes it as a dangerous attack on victim protections and free speech. Her team calls the suit meritless, retaliatory, and incapable of being cured by amendment. They request full dismissal—with prejudice—and hint that sanctions under Section 47.1 may follow.

Whether the court agrees remains to be seen, but if Lively’s reply lands, it could set a precedent for how courts handle weaponized defamation suits in the wake of #MeToo.