A noteworthy development yesterday in the Blake Lively/Justin Baldoni lawsuit. Here’s a quick(ish) summary on the situation since my focus is on the media and not the legal.
Blake Lively is suing Justin Baldoni and his business partners for (among other things) sexual harassment. Justin Baldoni and his partners are countersuing her for defamation. Blake's lawyers filed a motion to dismiss Justin’s defamation lawsuit based on a law in California, AB 933, often called the “#MeToo bill” that was passed in 2023. “The intent of AB 933 was to protect survivors from defamation lawsuits filed against them, to deter abusers from filing retaliatory defamation suits, and to combat the pervasive silencing of survivors that enables sexual harassment and assault to persist at epidemic rates.”
Yesterday, three advocacy groups, Equal Rights Advocates, the California Employment Lawyers Association, and the California Women’s Law Center, filed an amicus brief in support of Blake Lively’s motion to dismiss based on AB 933 – significant because these three organisations wrote and/or sponsored the law being passed into legislation. In the brief, they lay out the purpose of the law, and argue that Justin Baldoni’s legal actions and PR tactics represent why the law was proposed in the first place. And if Blake Lively, with all her resources, cannot be protected from it, most of the people who bring forward harassment claims definitely won’t be either. As stated in the brief:
“…based on the pleadings here, the Baldoni Plaintiffs’ retaliatory defamation lawsuit is the prototypical suit that the California Legislature intended to short circuit by enacting AB 933. It weaponizes the DARVO technique to recast Mr. Baldoni as the victim to undermine Ms. Lively’s credibility while also attempting to leverage the powerful tool of abusive discovery to further persecute her. Granting Ms. Lively’s motion to dismiss based on AB 933 would allow the law to work as intended by providing early protection and relief for survivors who speak out about sexual harassment. Denying Ms. Lively’s motion to dismiss, on the other hand, will encourage abusers to use defamation suits to silence victims and will chill victims’ willingness to report sexual assault and harassment in future—the exact opposite of the intent of AB 933.”
A major reason for why these organisations have been compelled to enter the chat is because in response to Blake’s motion to dismiss based on AB 933, Justin’s lawyers called the law “unconstitutional”. Which means they’re going after the actual integrity of this bill. This lawsuit represents the first test of this law since it was passed. This is why advocacy groups are so concerned and why the authors of AB 933, the people who championed it through California State Assembly, have written to the judge presiding over the Lively-Baldoni case, making it clear that they consider Justin Baldoni and his legal team’s moves to be following the strategy that they are actively trying to guard against:
“The Baldoni Plaintiffs have already signaled their intent to follow the abusive discovery playbook by invading Ms. Lively’s privacy and disrupting her relationships, as frequently happens with other survivors who speak up.”
To read the brief in full, please click here. According to the LA Times, at least one other brief has been filed and “additional briefs are expected in the coming days from advocacy groups including Child USA and Sanctuary for Families” in support of Blake’s motion to dismiss.
I am specifically mentioning the LA Times because, well, they’re pretty much the only ones to mention. At the time of this writing (10am ET on Wednesday 28 May, 2025) mainstream media has been pretty quiet about this news. I can’t find the story at most high profile entertainment outlets, including PEOPLE and Page Six. And I also don’t see it at TMZ which is curious since they’re known for being the first with legal updates and practically have cameras installed inside courtrooms and police stations. If you go to the Blake Lively page at TMZ, at the time of this writing, the last update was from May 22 and it was more to do with Taylor Swift. Justin’s lawyer, who seems to sleep on an open call with the media these days, has not responded either – which is smart, because he certainly wouldn’t want to amplify this development. Not when he can’t invoke Taylor Swift.
Because, of course, as I’ve been saying too much, Taylor Swift is the goddamn main character of this lawsuit. And these amicus briefs have nothing to do with Taylor Swift, even though she does get a mention in a section where the advocacy groups list off all the ways in which Justin’s team has weaponised Blake’s friendships against her in the court of public opinion.
Almost every development in this case has been breathlessly covered. When the amicus brief came out yesterday, I kept refreshing and googling to see which outlets would pick it up and have done so this morning too – and though the LA Times covered it, and they were on it within a couple of hours, this is still not showing up at the other usuals.
Is it because the brief is too complicated? Too much legal inside baseball? Not sexy enough? Maybe it’s not newsworthy that advocacy groups who specialise in harassment and retaliation have taken an official position in this case and are asking the judge to consider it? It must not be as newsworthy as an Instagram unfollow or never follow in terms of what’s actually germane to this lawsuit.
So many people’s opinion about this mess has been shaped by both legacy media and social media though. The way this case has been covered has a direct relationship to the way people are siding – and as we have seen, Blake Lively’s eaten the most sh-t because of it. But it’s interesting, even telling, what information gets highlighted and what doesn’t and what effect that may or may not have on the situation. And, of course, who it benefits.
What’s undeniable about the brief(s) that have been filed this week though is that they make it obvious that this is beyond celebrity, beyond two people in Hollywood engaged in a she-said-he-said battle. Many people are deeply concerned with the ramifications of this lawsuit and, in particular, the judge’s ultimate decision about this motion to dismiss. Because, again, AB 933 is at the heart of it, Justin Baldoni’s lawyers are attacking its right to exist. Not that newsworthy, I guess!
