'%20x='0'%20y='0'%20height='100%25'%20width='100%25'%20%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20xlink%3Ahref=''%3E%3C/image%3E%3C/svg%3E)
Podcaster Perez Hilton weighed in on the legal drama between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni following Judge Liman’s bombshell dismissal of Baldoni’s $400 million lawsuit. In his podcast video on June 10, 2025, Hilton highlighted the far-reaching implications this decision could have in future Hollywood contracts.
"Y'all, this ruling is gonna have huge ripples in show business and perhaps needed. Contracts going forward are gonna need to be very explicit. They're gonna need to be some Blake Lively clauses- 'As an actor, you can and cannot do this, that, or the other'", he explained.
Trending
To understand Perez Hilton's remarks, it’s important to look at the background of the legal dispute between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni.
According to Reuters, Justin Baldoni had filed a $400 million lawsuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, their publicist, and The New York Times, alleging defamation and extortion. The suit was filed in response to Lively’s accusation that Baldoni had sexually harassed her during the filming of their 2024 movie, It Ends With Us.
However, on June 9, 2025, Judge Liman issued a 132-page decision dismissing Baldoni’s case, stating there was no legal basis for his claims. He further noted that Baldoni’s “conclusory” allegations were “insufficient to plead a breach of contract.”
"Assuming the Wayfarer parties did plead that Lively refused to do that which her contract required her to do, that would not alone be sufficient to plead that such a refusal was wrongful and could support a claim for civil extortion," Hilton added, citing the judge’s decision.
In this context, Hilton, in the aforementioned podcast episode, emphasized the need for clarity in entertainment contracts. He further predicted that contracts in the future will be “very explicit” to eliminate ambiguity around an actor’s responsibilities and potential contract breaches.
Perez Hilton discusses key points from Judge Liman’s ruling decision to dismiss Justin Baldoni’s lawsuit against Blake Lively
In the aforementioned podcast episode, Perez Hilton broke down several key points from Judge Liman’s 132-page ruling that dismissed Justin Baldoni’s lawsuit against actress Blake Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, their publicist, and The New York Times.
One major point Perez Hilton highlighted was the judge’s clear dismissal of the claim regarding Lively’s absence from the film’s premiere. Baldoni’s legal team had argued that her refusal to attend the event with him constituted a breach of contract. However, according to Judge Liman,
"The Wayfarer parties do not allege that Lively had any obligation to attend the premiere with Baldoni".
Hilton explained that the judge viewed Lively’s decision not as a threat, but as a valid negotiation tactic. Since she was under no contractual obligation to appear at the premiere, her absence was considered part of a "bargaining position", not a breach. Liman ultimately concluded that her behavior was "insufficient to plead that Lively threatened to breach her contract".
Another key part of the ruling focused on the claim of economic duress. Judge Liman rejected it, saying Baldoni and Wayfarer couldn’t prove they suffered serious financial harm. The only cost they mentioned was hiring another producer, which didn’t benefit Blake Lively and couldn’t be seen as extortion.
Perez Hilton also pointed out that, as per the ruling, even if Lively’s requests were ultimately unnecessary, she had every right to advocate for workplace protections, including safeguards against sexual harassment. Such actions, as the ruling emphasized, could not be labeled as extortion.
"If an employer accedes, it cannot later claim to be a victim of the employee’s wrongful threats. Baldoni and his production company did agree to all the conditions she stated for returning to filming," Perez Hilton added, citing the ruling decision.
The podcaster further stated that he was "almost speechless" after reading the judge’s detailed reasoning for the dismissal. He further added that he was "glad" to be reading it firsthand before "the mainstream media" glossed over the "judge’s reasoning".
At present, in the ongoing legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, the former gained an upper hand after Judge Liman ruled that Baldoni could not sue Lively for defamation based on statements made in her lawsuit (as per The Guardian). However, Judge Liman granted Justin Baldoni’s legal team the option to revise and refile their complaint if they wished to pursue alternative claims.
Additionally, while Justin Baldoni’s lawsuit has been dismissed for now, Blake Lively's lawsuit, in which she alleged harassment, remains active in Manhattan federal court and is scheduled for trial on March 9, 2026.
