Full Analysis Summary
Legal Dispute Between Actors
A federal judge in Manhattan has dismissed actor Justin Baldoni’s $400 million defamation lawsuit against Blake Lively.
The dismissal occurred after Baldoni missed a court deadline to amend his complaint.
The lawsuit was originally filed in January 2025.
It was brought in response to Lively’s December 2024 sexual harassment lawsuit related to their work on It Ends With Us.
The dismissal hinges on Baldoni’s failure to meet the amendment deadline.
Media outlets across regions describe this as the latest development in an ongoing legal dispute between the two actors.
Coverage Differences
narrative
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Western Mainstream) emphasizes the procedural cause and venue—"officially dismissed by a federal judge in Manhattan"—and frames it as the latest step in an "ongoing legal dispute." The Express Tribune (Asian) similarly centers the missed deadline but adds that Baldoni’s case was tied to Lively’s December 2024 harassment claim. UNILAD (Western Tabloid) expands the scope by noting Baldoni had also targeted Ryan Reynolds and The New York Times, while Geo TV (Other) characterizes Baldoni’s filing as a "$400 million countersuit," highlighting a retaliatory framing.
tone
ABC (Western Mainstream) uses neutral courtroom language and avoids sensational details. UNILAD (Western Tabloid) underscores a broader conflict and ties the dismissal to a supposed lack of merit and free speech protections, introducing a sharper evaluative tone. The Express Tribune (Asian) focuses on case mechanics and scheduling without dramatic embellishment, while Geo TV (Other) keeps to procedural facts with a succinct summary.
Case Dismissal and Deadlines
Coverage differs on the exact timing and terminology of the case dismissal.
The suit was first dismissed in June with leave to amend.
Baldoni then missed an October deadline, prompting the formal closure of the case.
The Express Tribune specifies an October 17 amendment deadline and names Judge Lewis Liman.
UNILAD cites an October 31 ruling and spells the judge’s name as "Lewis Linman."
ABC broadly notes a missed October deadline after the initial June dismissal.
Geo TV emphasizes that the court allowed amendments which Baldoni did not file.
This aligns with the procedural basis for dismissal reported across various outlets.
Coverage Differences
missed information
The Express Tribune (Asian) provides a precise date for the amendment deadline—"October 17"—and names the judge as "Lewis Liman," details not specified by ABC (Western Mainstream). UNILAD (Western Tabloid) offers a different key date—"October 31"—for the ruling and misspells the judge’s name as "Linman," introducing ambiguity that other outlets do not share. Geo TV (Other) reports the permission to amend and failure to do so, but does not provide exact dates.
contradiction
There is a discrepancy in dates and judicial naming: The Express Tribune (Asian) names "Judge Lewis Liman" and an "October 17" deadline, whereas UNILAD (Western Tabloid) refers to "Judge Lewis Linman" and an "October 31" ruling. ABC (Western Mainstream) does not specify the exact day, avoiding the potential conflict.
Legal Outcomes of Baldoni's Claims
Reports vary on the scope and legal assessment of Baldoni’s claims.
Geo TV and UNILAD note he targeted not only Lively but also Ryan Reynolds and The New York Times.
Geo TV adds that he accused them of civil extortion, defamation, and invasion of privacy.
UNILAD reports the judge found the defamation case lacked merit partly because the New York Times article was protected by free speech and reporting privileges.
India Today similarly states the court ruled the challenged statements were legally protected.
The Express Tribune adds that Baldoni’s other legal actions, such as a libel suit against the Times and a countersuit against Lively and Ryan Reynolds, were also dismissed.
Coverage Differences
narrative
Geo TV (Other) underscores the multi-party scope and specific torts—"civil extortion, defamation, and invasion of privacy"—while UNILAD (Western Tabloid) leans into a merits assessment, stating the judge found the case "lacked merit" due to protections around the New York Times’ reporting. India Today (Asian) frames the dismissal in terms of legal privileges shielding statements linked to Lively’s complaint and the Times’ report. The Express Tribune (Asian) broadens the outcome by noting other Baldoni legal actions were "also dismissed."
Lively's Harassment Lawsuit Update
Lively’s original sexual harassment lawsuit remains active.
The lawsuit originated in December 2024 and relates to conduct on the set of It Ends With Us.
India Today reports that Lively’s filing includes detailed on‑set misconduct allegations.
UNILAD and ABC both state that her case continues in federal court as the broader dispute carries on.
The Express Tribune adds a specific schedule update, reporting a March 9, 2026 trial date to address Lively’s harassment allegations.
Coverage Differences
missed information
India Today (Asian) provides granular detail about the harassment allegations—"on-set misconduct" and alleged "inappropriate physical and verbal advances"—which ABC (Western Mainstream) and UNILAD (Western Tabloid) do not describe. The Express Tribune (Asian) uniquely reports a trial date—"March 9, 2026"—that others do not mention.
tone
UNILAD (Western Tabloid) emphasizes the adversarial nature of the "legal battle" and "smear campaign" framing around Lively’s allegations, whereas ABC (Western Mainstream) remains restrained, and India Today (Asian) focuses on legal protections and detailed claims.
Legal Fee Disputes and Appeals
There is disagreement about the status of legal fees and appeals.
The Express Tribune and India Today report that Baldoni may appeal after motions regarding legal fee reimbursements are resolved.
Geo TV notes that Lively’s request for fees is still active.
In contrast, UNILAD states that the judge approved Lively’s request to recover legal fees.
All sources agree that Baldoni retains the right to appeal once fee issues are settled.
They also agree that Lively’s underlying harassment case is ongoing.
Coverage Differences
contradiction
UNILAD (Western Tabloid) states that "the judge approved" Lively’s fee request, whereas The Express Tribune (Asian) and India Today (Asian) say an appeal may follow after fee-related motions are resolved, and Geo TV (Other) says the fee request is "active," indicating it is pending rather than approved.
narrative
Despite the fee-status split, multiple outlets converge that an appeal is possible after cost issues are handled and that Lively’s case proceeds. UNILAD (Western Tabloid) and India Today (Asian) both underline appeal rights tied to fee resolution, while ABC (Western Mainstream) focuses on the dismissal milestone without delving into cost proceedings.