Lead. The civil dispute between actor Blake Lively and director-actor Justin Baldoni, tied to the 2024 film It Ends With Us, has focused on roughly 10 minutes of on-set footage that shows the two slow dancing in a crowded bar scene. For more than a year the footage has divided observers: Ms. Lively says it illustrates an unwelcome, unscripted advance and patterns of harassment; Mr. Baldoni and his supporters say the same clips demonstrate conduct appropriate to a romantic scene. A federal judge will decide in spring 2026 whether Ms. Lively’s claims of harassment, retaliation and defamation may proceed to trial.
Key Takeaways
- The disputed footage runs about 10 minutes and depicts Mr. Baldoni leaning in to nuzzle and kiss Ms. Lively in a bar scene on the set of It Ends With Us (2024).
- Ms. Lively has brought civil claims alleging sexual harassment, retaliation and defamation; the lawsuit has been active for more than a year.
- Defendants argue the behavior shown was scripted or appropriate to the scene and that the footage supports his professional conduct.
- The footage, circulated online and credited to Wayfarer Studios via YouTube, is now an exhibit before a federal judge deciding pretrial thresholds this spring 2026.
- The dispute has become a test case for how courts and industry gatekeepers evaluate intimacy, consent and realism in simulated sexual relationships on film sets.
Background
The claim arises from production of the 2024 film It Ends With Us, in which Mr. Baldoni directed and both he and Ms. Lively performed as a romantic pair. The film’s narrative centers on a sexual relationship that escalates into violence, so several scenes required physical intimacy and emotional intensity. Over the past decade, the entertainment industry has tightened protocols for workplace conduct, including the use of intimacy coordinators and clearer consent processes, in response to broader harassment revelations and regulatory scrutiny.
Legal claims alleging on-set misconduct have increased public attention on where consensual performance ends and actionable harassment begins. Producers, insurers and unions have been adapting contracts and safety protocols, and courts are being asked to apply established workplace harassment and tort law to the particularities of creative settings. The Lively–Baldoni dispute now sits at the intersection of those evolving norms and litigation strategy.
Main Event
The focal evidence in the litigation is footage filmed during a crowded bar scene in which Mr. Baldoni and Ms. Lively dance; the recording shows him leaning in and kissing her while cameras roll. Ms. Lively and her attorneys characterize moments in that footage as unscripted advances that fit a broader pattern she alleges occurred during production. Her complaint also alleges retaliatory actions and defamation tied to the dispute.
Mr. Baldoni and his legal team counter that the clips are consistent with direction and with an authentic portrayal of a couple falling in love—a key dramatic objective of the scene—and thus do not amount to harassment. Defense filings stress that the footage is limited in duration (about 10 minutes in total) and, in their view, exculpates him by showing professional conduct on camera.
Initially debated across social media and entertainment pages, the clips have been formally entered as exhibits; the judge will evaluate whether Ms. Lively’s claims meet the legal standard to move forward. That threshold determination will shape whether the case proceeds to full discovery and, potentially, trial in the months ahead.
Analysis & Implications
Legally, courts distinguish between on-set, creative choices and conduct that rises to a hostile work environment or actionable torts like battery or intentional infliction of emotional distress. The outcome will hinge on how the judge interprets context: whether the conduct was a part of consensual performance, whether production protocols were followed, and whether any alleged misconduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive under applicable law.
For the film industry, the case underscores friction between artistic realism and workplace safety. If courts or regulators treat certain on-camera advances as potentially actionable, productions may further formalize consent processes, expand the use of intimacy coordinators, and change how directors rehearse and capture intimate scenes. Insurers and studios could tighten contractual language to allocate risk and clarify acceptable practices.
There is also a reputational dimension: high-profile disputes can influence hiring, creative collaboration and public reception of a film. Directors and actors may seek clearer contemporaneous documentation—call sheets, rehearsal notes, witness statements—so that conduct can be assessed against objective records rather than memory or viral clips alone.
Comparison & Data
| Measure | Case Detail |
|---|---|
| Film | It Ends With Us (2024) |
| Disputed footage | About 10 minutes of on-set video |
| Claims | Harassment, retaliation, defamation |
| Judicial milestone | Judge to rule on pretrial threshold in spring 2026 |
The table highlights concrete markers that courts and industry observers are watching. Unlike criminal prosecutions, civil litigation turns on burdens of proof, plausibility of allegations, and the sufficiency of factual detail to justify discovery; these procedural thresholds often determine whether disputed incidents are litigated publicly or resolved privately.
Reactions & Quotes
“To her supporters, the footage is an uncomfortable, unscripted advance and part of a pervasive pattern alleged on set.”
Supporters / Plaintiff filings (paraphrase)
“To his defenders, the same clips are proof he behaved appropriately and realistically for a love scene.”
Defense counsel / Public statements (paraphrase)
Public reaction has been split: some industry figures and viewers emphasize consent and the need for protective protocols on set, while others note the challenges of judging staged intimacy from short clips. Legal commentators say the judge’s ruling on whether the claims clear the threshold to proceed will be as consequential as any eventual trial outcome for industry practices.
Unconfirmed
- Whether internal production reports or formal investigations found additional corroborating incidents beyond the disputed footage remains unpublished.
- Reports of direct settlement negotiations between the parties have not been independently verified in public filings.
Bottom Line
The Lively–Baldoni dispute will test how courts balance creative context with workplace protections when intimate conduct occurs on camera. The near-term legal question—whether the judge allows the harassment, retaliation and defamation claims to proceed—will shape whether the matter becomes a full public trial or moves toward confidential resolution.
Beyond the courtroom, the case is likely to accelerate industry discussions about consent documentation, use of intimacy coordinators and transparent rehearsal practices. Producers, insurers and talent may adopt clearer protocols to reduce ambiguity about what is rehearsed, consented to, and captured on film.
Sources
- The New York Times — news reporting (original story summarizing the litigation and footage)