Director Justin Baldoni sues the New York Times for Libel in "It Ends with Us" Sexual Harassment Complaint Reporting

Director and Actor, Justin Baldoni at Premiere of "It Ends with Us" in August 2024

LOS ANGELES, January 2, 2025--Justin Baldoni's lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, seeks upward of $250 million in damages, alleging that the New York Times “relied almost entirely on Lively’s unverified and self-serving narrative, lifting it nearly verbatim while disregarding an abundance of evidence that contradicted her claims and exposed her true motives.”

Baldoni, the director and co-star of “It Ends With Us,” is suing for libel for a story it published about allegations made earlier that month by his co-star, Blake Lively, that she was sexually harassed and that Baldoni hired a crisis PR firm to coordinate a smear campaign against her.

The suit also accused the outlet of not providing enough time to Baldoni and his team to respond to Lively’s allegations ahead of the Dec. 21 story’s publication, alleging that they received roughly 14 hours to provide comment, only for the Times to publish nearly two hours earlier than promised.

The New York Times, in an emailed statement, stood firm on its reportage.

“Our story was meticulously and responsibly reported. It was based on a review of thousands of pages of original documents, including the text messages and emails that we quote accurately and at length in the article,” wrote Danielle Rhoades Ha, senior vice president of external communications for the Times. “... We published their full statement in response to the allegations in the article as well. We plan to vigorously defend against the lawsuit.”

Baldoni denied allegations that his team planted stories as part of a covert media campaign to harm Lively’s reputation, instead saying she cherry-picked and edited the text messages she used as evidence of a smear campaign.

In a text exchange, one of Baldoni’s publicists told a colleague “You really outdid yourself with this piece” when discussing a negative Daily Mail story about Lively. But Baldoni claimed that the prior conversation and an upside-down smiley-face emoji were left out of the quotes shared by Lively and the Times, which made it clear the publicists were being sarcastic about having any involvement in the article.

The actor argued in the complaint that he hired a crisis PR firm as a “protective measure” ahead of the film’s premiere, with a defense strategy focused only on correcting misinformation if it arose.

Throughout the lawsuit, Baldoni accused Lively of usurping creative control of the movie, including making her own costuming decisions, rewriting parts of the script, and replacing the film’s editors and composer. The suit includes a screenshot of an email from “It Ends With Us” producer Jamey Heath saying that he felt pressured to support Lively’s bid for a producers certification mark, a designation from the Producers Guild of America in film credits that identifies which producers performed most of the producing functions and decision-making.

“It Ends With Us” ended up becoming a box office hit, making around $350 million in theaters worldwide after it was released in August. But domestic violence survivors said the movie’s drama and promotional efforts eclipsed the film’s message.

Case Summary

The Baldoni et. al.  suit is based on the following allegations:

(1) Libel

The Article purported to detail a “campaign” allegedly orchestrated by Plaintiffs to “tarnish” Lively. It did so chiefly through the selective disclosure of private communications allegedly exchanged between Plaintiffs. And The Times, without elaboration, dismisses this concern as baseless, treating Plaintiffs’ candid private discussions, which were never intended to see the light of day, as if it were a press release. In fact, as the Times should know from the voluminous confidential communications it apparently has obtained, Plaintiffs’ concerns were not baseless.

(2) False light invasion of privacy

The Times depicted Plaintiffs in a false, fictionalized, and sensationalized light in order to catalyze public opprobrium towards Plaintiffs, stir public discussion of the Article, and draw readers to the Times. The Times contacted Plaintiffs concerning the allegations "on the evening of Friday, December 20, 2024, providing them until the following morning to respond to extensive, highly inflammatory allegations based on curiously obtained, cherry-picked private communications of uncertain authenticity or accuracy." Thereafter, Defendants published the Article two hours before their stated deadline, cutting off Plaintiffs’ ability to respond and as a direct and proximate result of the Plaintiffs have suffered general and special damages in an amount of not less than $250 million, including damage to Plaintiffs’ reputations and standing in the community, shame, mortification, hurt feelings, embarrassment, humiliation, damage to peace of mind, emotional distress, and injury in their occupations.

(3) Promissory Fraud and

The Times intended for Plaintiffs to rely on their false promise, which Plaintiffs did, in fact, do to their detriment and as a direct and proximate result of the above-described conduct the Plaintiffs have been harmed.

(4) Breach of implied -in-fact contract

The Times breached the implied-in-fact contract by publishing the Article at 10:11 a.m. (EST), in direct violation of their express representation to Plaintiffs of noon publishing. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, the Plaintiffs were deprived of the benefits of the bargain in that they lost the opportunity to meaningfully assess and respond to a false, misleading, extremely inflammatory portrayal of their actions and character.

The Law

Causes of Action

LIBEL

Cal. Civ. Code § 45

Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.

Dethlefsen v. Stull, 86 Cal. App. 2d 499, 195 P.2d 56 (1948)

In libel action, burden of proving truth of statement is upon defendant though it is not necessary to prove literal truth of an allegedly libelous accusation in every detail so long as imputation is substantially true so as to justify gist or sting of the remark.

To be “libelous per se,” a writing, falsely charging a person with a violation of confidence reposed in him or with treachery to his associates, is actionable per se.

Barnes-Hind, Inc. v. Superior Ct., 181 Cal. App. 3d 377, 226 Cal. Rptr. 354 (Ct. App. 1986)

Publication is not libelous, though false and unprivileged, where no reasonable reader would perceive defamatory meaning therein. 

FALSE LIGHT

“ False light ” is a species of invasion of privacy, based on publicity that places a plaintiff before the public in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and where the defendant knew or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the plaintiff would be placed.

Jackson v. Mayweather, 10 Cal. App. 5th 1240, 217 Cal. Rptr. 3d 234 (2017), (Apr. 19, 2017)

Under California common law the dissemination of truthful, newsworthy material is not actionable as a publication of private facts.

To prove actual malice on a defamation claim, a plaintiff must show that statements were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not.

When a defendant's anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) motion seeks to strike particular claims supported by allegations of protected activity that appear alongside other claims within a single cause of action, the plaintiff must make the requisite showing as to each challenged claim that is based on allegations of protected activity. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16.

PROMISSORY FRAUD

Promissory fraud is subspecies of action for fraud and deceit, and is based on fact that promise to do something necessarily implies intention to perform;  hence, where promise is made without such intention, there is implied misrepresentation of fact that may be actionable fraud.

Cal. Civ. Code § 1710

Deceit is either:
1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;

2. The assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true;
3. The suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact; or,
4. A promise, made without any intention of performing it.

BREACH OF IMPLIED-IN-FACT CONTRACT

A breach of contract case is a case when an agreement or contract is broken (breached). The agreement can be in writing, it can be verbal, or it can be implied from the situation. In these cases, one side argues that the other side broke their agreement and it harmed them.

For Business Lawyers in California 

RP Law Group