Blake Lively Invokes #MeToo Law in Bid to Throw Out Justin Baldoni’s Defamation Suit - Variety

By Alex Carter

In a recent development in the high-profile defamation suit filed by actor Justin Baldoni, actress Blake Lively has invoked a California law passed in the light of the #MeToo movement. This law, aimed at protecting victims of sexual harassment from legal retaliation, could potentially set a precedent in the ongoing battle against such abuses within Hollywood and other industries. The case is drawing considerable attention, not only due to the celebrities involved, but also because of its potential impact on the interpretation and application of this relatively new law.

Blake Lively, known for her roles in Gossip Girl and The Age of Adaline, has recently invoked a California law to try to dismiss a defamation suit brought against her by actor and filmmaker Justin Baldoni. The law in question, commonly referred to as the #MeToo law, was enacted in response to the widespread sexual harassment and assault allegations that rocked Hollywood in 2017. Its primary function is to bolster the legal protections for individuals who speak out about sexual misconduct, particularly in the workplace.

Baldoni's defamation suit against Lively stems from allegations of sexual harassment that she made publicly against him. In response, Baldoni filed a lawsuit claiming that these allegations were false and had caused him significant harm, both personally and professionally. Lively's legal team has countered by invoking the #MeToo law, arguing that Baldoni's suit is a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), which aims to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense.

This is a high-stakes legal battle, not just for the parties involved, but also for the precedent it could set. If Lively's motion to dismiss under the #MeToo law is successful, it could establish a powerful precedent protecting those who speak out about sexual misconduct from retaliation lawsuits. On the other hand, if Baldoni's defamation suit proceeds, it could potentially deter victims of sexual misconduct from coming forward in the future.

The law that Lively has invoked is known as the anti-SLAPP statute, a landmark legislation passed in California meant to curb strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). The law aims to protect individuals who exercise their First Amendment rights from being burdened with the cost of a legal defense in a meritless lawsuit. This legislation is particularly relevant in this case as Lively's attorneys argue that the actress was simply exercising her right to free speech when she made the alleged defamatory statements against Baldoni.

The #MeToo movement, which highlighted the issue of sexual harassment and assault in various industries, played a significant role in the enactment of the anti-SLAPP statute. The movement brought a wave of public support that influenced the legislation, making it a potent tool for those seeking to speak out against sexual misconduct without fear of legal retribution. This context adds another layer to Lively's defense, suggesting that her allegations were not just a personal attack on Baldoni, but a public stance against sexual misconduct.

However, invoking the anti-SLAPP statute is not without its risks. If Lively fails to convince the court that her statements were made in the interest of public discourse, and not simply to defame Baldoni, she could face severe penalties. These could include paying Baldoni's legal fees and a potential increase in damages, should Baldoni's defamation claim succeed.

Regardless of the outcome, Lively's invocation of the anti-SLAPP statute in her defense marks a significant moment in #MeToo legal history. The case will likely set a precedent for future defamation suits involving statements made in the context of the #MeToo movement.

Blake Lively's use of the new California law, passed in the wake of the #MeToo movement, is a significant development in the ongoing legal battle with Justin Baldoni. This law, known as the Anti-SLAPP statute, was designed to prevent legal intimidation and protect the freedom of speech, particularly in cases involving public figures and issues of public interest.

According to prominent defamation attorney, David Marroso, "The invocation of the Anti-SLAPP law in this case demonstrates the growing influence of the #MeToo movement on our legal system. It's often used in cases where the plaintiff is trying to silence or intimidate the defendant through a defamation claim. If successful, Baldoni's claim could be thrown out and he could be ordered to pay Lively's legal fees."

Marroso further explained that, "The Anti-SLAPP law is a powerful tool for defendants in defamation cases. However, it's not a guaranteed win. The defendant must convincingly demonstrate that the statement in question pertains to an issue of public interest and was not made with malice."

This invocation of the Anti-SLAPP law in a high-profile case like this, represents a strategic move by Lively and her legal team. It underscores the profound impact the #MeToo movement has had on the legal landscape, particularly in defamation cases involving public figures.

In spite of the intense media attention surrounding this legal struggle, it remains to be seen how the court will interpret the anti-SLAPP statute invoked by Blake Lively. This case, which intertwines celebrity culture, defamation claims, and #MeToo laws, is emblematic of the continually evolving landscape of legal protections in the face of social movements.

Regardless of the outcome, this case underscores the significant impact the #MeToo movement has had on the legal, social, and cultural spheres, demonstrating the importance of evolving laws to reflect societal changes. In the end, the court's decision will set a precedent that could have far-reaching implications for future defamation cases involving high-profile individuals.

Source: https://variety.com/2025/film/news/blake-lively-metoo-justin-baldoni-suit-dismiss-1236343885/