Blake Lively Seeks $161 Million, Cites ‘It Ends With Us’ Smear Campaign

Lead

Actress Blake Lively says a smear campaign tied to the release of It Ends With Us has cost her roughly $161 million in real damages, according to a disclosure by her legal team. The claim — detailed in a July disclosure after an initial filing on Dec. 31, 2024 — breaks losses into earnings, brand harm and reputational impact. Lively is scheduled to face trial next March in a suit naming co-star and director Justin Baldoni, producer Jamey Heath, studio head Steve Sarowitz and their publicists. Her lawyers say the online vitriol followed her raising sexual harassment complaints on set and produced measurable harm to income and brand value.

Key Takeaways

• Lively’s July disclosure estimates at least $161 million in actual damages, with a separate request for at least triple that amount in punitive damages.
• Attorneys attribute $56.2 million to lost past and future earnings from acting, producing, speaking and endorsements.
• Her beauty brand, Blake Brown, is alleged to have lost $49 million; beverage business Betty Buzz/Betty Booze is cited at $22 million in losses.
• Reputational harm is quantified at about $34 million, based on an estimated 65 million negative social-media impressions.
• The original complaint, filed Dec. 31, 2024, stated damages exceeded $75,000; the $161 million figure is described as preliminary and subject to expert proof at trial.
• Justin Baldoni’s team previously asserted it suffered $400 million in damages, but that countersuit was dismissed in June.
• The disclosure lists numerous Hollywood figures who may have relevant information, including Taylor Swift and Emily Blunt, though major names are not expected to testify.

Background

The case stems from production and promotion of the 2024 film It Ends With Us, during which Lively alleges she reported incidents of sexual harassment. Her initial lawsuit was filed on Dec. 31, 2024; that pleading only set a baseline that damages exceeded $75,000. In the months that followed, Lively’s attorneys prepared a more detailed damages disclosure, submitted to the defense in July, that assigns dollar values to lost income, brand erosion and reputational damage.

The legal battle has expanded beyond a private dispute into a public contest over reputational injury and the calculation of damages tied to online activity. Defendants named in the suit include on-screen colleagues, production leadership and publicists. Separately, Baldoni’s legal team had sought redress, claiming $400 million in harm from what it characterized as defamatory allegations; a judge dismissed that counter-litigation in June, limiting what can proceed as a standalone defamation claim.

Main Event

According to the July disclosure, Lively’s counsel apportioned losses across categories: $56.2 million for projected and past personal income; $49 million for Blake Brown; $22 million for Betty Buzz/Betty Booze; and $34 million for reputational harm tied to social-media impressions. The disclosure was made public this week after being provided to defense counsel earlier in July. Counsel emphasize the $161 million total is preliminary and will be supported by expert testimony at trial.

The suit names Justin Baldoni, producer Jamey Heath, studio head Steve Sarowitz and various publicists as defendants. Lively contends that online vitriol intensified after she raised harassment complaints on set and that a co-ordinated smear campaign followed, harming both her personal earning capacity and commercial ventures tied to her name. The defense has contested the figures and the causal link between on-set complaints and subsequent online activity.

Pretrial motions and discovery have focused in part on who amplified negative material and whether third parties played roles in spreading it. The disclosure also provides a long list of potential witnesses from the entertainment industry; while the list names high-profile figures, court filings and legal observers say few are likely to be called at trial. Trial is scheduled for next March, when expert witnesses are expected to testify about valuation and attribution of online harms.

Analysis & Implications

Legal experts say the case will test how courts assess economic harm from reputational injury amplified by social media. Assigning a dollar value to impressions and to brand damage requires complex modeling — including lost deals forecasting, market comparables and consumer-perception metrics — and often invites vigorous cross-examination by defense econometricians. The disclosure’s categories mirror common elements in commercial damages claims but rely on assumptions that will be scrutinized at trial.

If jurors accept large portions of Lively’s assessment, the ruling could influence how talent and companies frame reputational losses in future entertainment-industry disputes. A finding for substantial damages might encourage other public figures to quantify social-media impact and pursue civil remedies, while a defense victory would signal judicial skepticism about high, early-stage valuations. Either outcome could affect contract negotiations, insurance underwriting and how studios assess reputational risk.

The punitive damages request — the disclosure indicates Lively will seek at least three times actual damages — raises stakes further. Punitive multipliers depend on jurisdictional standards and factual findings about malice or willful conduct; courts rarely award punitive damages without clear evidence of egregious intent. Defendants’ prior attempt to assert a $400 million counterclaim, and its dismissal, narrows some aspects of the dispute but does not resolve the core questions about causation and measurement.

Comparison & Data

The disclosure breaks the total into discrete buckets to show linkages between alleged conduct and specific commercial harms. Valuation of brand and reputational damage commonly uses lost-revenue projections, market comparables and media-impact studies; each method brings assumptions about counterfactual scenarios (what revenue would have been absent the alleged campaign). At trial, both sides are likely to present competing expert models and challenge underlying data sources and attribution methods.

Reactions & Quotes

Legal and industry observers have noted the strategic function of large preliminary damage figures: they can pressure the opposing side in settlement negotiations even if the numbers are pared back at trial. A Los Angeles plaintiff attorney characterized the disclosure as a negotiating posture rather than a finalized valuation.

“These are wish list numbers. You want to put a big enough number to get the other side concerned and want to settle.”

Gregory Doll, Doll Amir Eley (lawyer)

The public record also highlights the difference between initial filings and later detailed disclosures, as courts require parties to reveal the basis for claimed damages during discovery. Lively’s initial complaint only alleged damages exceeded $75,000; the July disclosure presents a granular accounting intended to support the larger total.

“The original complaint noted damages exceeded $75,000; the July disclosure supplies a dollar-by-dollar framework the plaintiffs say their experts will defend.”

Court filing (plaintiff disclosure)

Unconfirmed

• Whether any high-profile figures listed in the disclosure — including Taylor Swift or Emily Blunt — will provide testimony remains unclear and subject to future court rulings.
• The precise methodologies and datasets experts will use to justify the $161 million figure have not been publicly disclosed and will be established during pretrial expert exchanges.
• Any final punitive-damages award or multiplier is speculative until a jury or judge issues a decision; the plaintiffs’ request for at least triple the actual damages is a claim, not a judgment.

Bottom Line

The July disclosure marks a tactical escalation in Blake Lively’s case, translating alleged reputational and commercial harms into a headline figure of $161 million while reserving detailed proof for trial experts. Whether jurors accept the plaintiffs’ attribution and valuation methods will determine the financial and precedent-setting impact of the case. The dispute also underscores broader challenges courts face in quantifying harm tied to social media and celebrity, where impressions, sentiment and downstream commercial effects intersect.

Trial set for next March will focus on causation, valuation methodology and whether conduct met thresholds for punitive awards. Observers should expect intensive expert dueling over data inputs, and the final decision is likely to influence future litigation strategies for public figures and companies managing reputational risk.

Sources

• Variety — Entertainment news reporting and court-disclosure coverage