The Blake Lively-Justin Baldoni dispute generated months of headlines, viral commentary, and dueling lawsuits before ultimately settling earlier this year. But one of the most interesting legal developments may have come after the spotlight faded.
In late July, a New York court ordered Wayfarer Studios, the company co-founded by Baldoni, to pay more than $171,000 in legal fees to The New York Times after the paper successfully invoked New York’s anti-SLAPP statute following the court’s dismissal of Baldoni’s defamation claims against the newspaper.
For lawyers who handle First Amendment, media, and reputation-management matters, the outcome was not particularly surprising.
When Baldoni’s team first sued The New York Times over its reporting on Blake Lively’s allegations relating to the film It Ends With Us, some legal observers immediately recognized a potential anti-SLAPP issue. Anti-SLAPP laws, which stands for “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation,” are designed to deter lawsuits that seek to punish or silence speech on matters of public concern. In many jurisdictions, including New York and California, a plaintiff who brings a weak claim targeting protected speech may not only lose the case but may also end up paying the defendant’s attorneys’ fees.
That is exactly what happened here. After the defamation claims against The New York Times were dismissed, the newspaper sought to recover the costs of defending the litigation, arguing that the case lacked a substantial basis in law or fact. The court agreed and awarded the publication more than $171,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
The case offers an important lesson for celebrities, executives, and other public figures who find themselves at the center of an unflattering news cycle – and for the entertainment lawyers who represent them.
When negative stories gain traction, public figures, attorneys, and PR teams have a natural instinct to “control the narrative.” Litigation can appear to be an attractive tool for doing so. A lawsuit creates headlines, allows a plaintiff to tell their side of the story, and may signal a willingness to fight back.
But courts are increasingly careful to distinguish between protecting a reputation and suppressing protected speech. Anti-SLAPP statutes exist because the legal system is not intended to be used as a weapon against journalists, critics, or others speaking on matters of public interest.
That distinction matters. Reputation-management strategies can involve litigation when the facts and law support it. But filing suit solely to change the public conversation carries significant risk, including the possibility of paying the other side’s legal fees.
The Baldoni-New York Times dispute is a timely reminder that, while public figures may want to shape the narrative, anti-SLAPP laws help ensure that shaping the narrative does not become a means of silencing it.
This publication is provided by Greenspoon Marder LLP is issued for informational purposes only and is not intended to be construed or used as general legal advice nor a solicitation of any type. Please contact the author(s) or your Greenspoon Marder LLP contact if you have any questions regarding the currency of this information. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision. Before you decide, ask for written information about the lawyer’s legal qualifications and experience.
