Wayfarer Studios has been ordered to pay The New York Times $171,616.20 after losing a defamation dispute connected with the film It Ends With Us. The July 27, 2026 ruling does not decide whether every allegation made during the wider conflict between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni was true. It concerns the newspaper’s protection for reporting on a public complaint and its right to recover costs under New York’s anti-SLAPP law.
How the Dispute Began
The conflict became public in December 2024 after Lively filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department. She accused Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios and others associated with It Ends With Us of workplace misconduct and retaliation. The defendants denied wrongdoing.
On December 21, 2024, The New York Times published an investigation titled “We Can Bury Anyone: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine.” It reported on Lively’s complaint and communications that, according to her allegations, showed an effort to damage her reputation after she raised concerns during production.
Wayfarer and Baldoni argued that the article presented Lively’s account unfairly, used selected messages without proper context and ignored evidence supporting their version of events.
What Wayfarer Claimed Against the Newspaper
Wayfarer and related parties initially announced a $250 million defamation case against The New York Times. The newspaper was later named in the broader federal lawsuit filed by Baldoni, Wayfarer and others against Lively, Ryan Reynolds, Leslie Sloane and additional defendants.
That federal action sought $400 million across several claims. It alleged defamation, invasion of privacy, civil extortion and interference with contractual or business relationships. The plaintiffs maintained that Lively and her representatives had helped create a misleading public narrative.
The Times denied the allegations. It argued that its article accurately reported on Lively’s official civil-rights complaint and was protected by New York’s fair-report privilege.
Why the Claims Were Dismissed
On June 9, 2025, US District Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed the claims against The New York Times with prejudice, preventing them from being refiled.
The judge ruled that the coverage was protected as a fair and substantially accurate report of an official proceeding. The privilege did not require the newspaper to prove that every allegation in Lively’s complaint was true. The question was whether the article fairly described the complaint and related proceedings.
The court also found that allegations of bias, selective reporting or improper motive did not defeat the privilege. A news organisation may report accusations contained in an official filing without adopting them as proven findings.
Why The New York Times Filed a New Case
After defeating the defamation claims, The New York Times sued Wayfarer Studios in the New York Supreme Court on September 30, 2025.
The newspaper relied on New York’s anti-SLAPP law. SLAPP means Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Such laws protect speech and reporting on matters of public interest from claims lacking a substantial factual or legal basis.
The Times sought reimbursement for expenses incurred while defending the federal case. It requested $181,622.70 in attorney fees and related costs.
What the July 2026 Ruling Decided
New York Supreme Court Justice Gerald Lebovits granted summary judgment to The New York Times on July 27, 2026. He concluded that the reporting concerned a matter of public interest and that Wayfarer’s claims lacked a substantial basis in fact and law.
The judge awarded $171,616.20. Although some reports describe the payment as damages, it mainly represents recoverable legal fees and costs. The court reduced the original request because some work completed after the federal claims were dismissed was not recoverable.
Lebovits also rejected Wayfarer’s request to pause the case for a possible appeal. The parties in the wider federal dispute settled their remaining claims in May 2026 and waived appellate rights.
What the Decision Does Not Establish
The order does not declare that every accusation made by Lively was proved. Her remaining claims against Baldoni, Wayfarer and others were settled before trial, and the terms were not disclosed.
The ruling is narrower. It confirms that Wayfarer must compensate The New York Times for defending protected reporting after the studio’s defamation claims failed. The case also shows how anti-SLAPP laws can shift legal costs to a party that unsuccessfully sues over journalism concerning official proceedings and matters of public concern.