A federal judge in Manhattan threw out Blake Lively's sexual harassment claims against Justin Baldoni on Thursday, ruling that the actress was an independent contractor on the set of "It Ends With Us" and therefore not entitled to bring claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Judge Lewis J. Liman's written ruling gutted the centerpiece of Lively's lawsuit. Two retaliation claims survived, but the headline allegation, sexual harassment, did not, The Hill reported.

The Claims That Didn't Hold Up

Lively sued Baldoni last December, leveling over a dozen claims against him and other parties. The sexual harassment allegations centered on conduct during filming. Judge Liman laid out the specifics in his ruling:

"Lively claims that during filming, Baldoni leaned in and gestured as if he was intending to kiss her, and that he kissed her forehead, rubbed his face and mouth against her neck, put his thumb to her mouth and flicked her lower lip, caressed her, and leaned into her neck, saying 'it smells good.'"

Sounds damning in isolation. But context matters, and the judge found plenty of it. The conduct occurred during a slow dancing scene between two characters in a romantic drama. Liman concluded Baldoni was "acting in the scene."

"Assuming he was improvising, the conduct was not so far beyond what might reasonably be expected to take place between two characters during a slow dancing scene such that an inference of hostile treatment on the basis of sex would arise. At least in isolation, the conduct was directed to Lively's character rather than to Lively herself."

In other words, actors acting in a scene about romance may, in fact, do romantic things. The judge drew a line that Hollywood's current climate desperately needed someone to draw.

A Ruling With Broader Implications

Judge Liman went further, offering a principle that extends well beyond this case:

"Creative artists, no less than comedy room writers, must have some amount of space to experiment within the bounds of an agreed script without fear of being held liable for sexual harassment."

That sentence matters. The entertainment industry has spent years navigating the wreckage of genuine abuse scandals, but the pendulum swung so far that improvisation on a film set now risks litigation. Liman's ruling reasserts something obvious that had somehow become controversial: creative collaboration requires room to breathe.

This doesn't mean anything goes on set. It means that a court looked at the actual facts, weighed them against the legal standard, and concluded that acting like a romantic lead during a romantic scene is not sexual harassment. The distinction between a character's actions and an actor's intentions is not some technicality. It is the entire point.

The Bigger Picture

The "It Ends With Us" saga has been tabloid fuel since before the film's August 2024 release, which opened to a $50 million debut. Speculation about discord between Lively and Baldoni swirled for months. Lively eventually filed suit. Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios countersued both Lively and her husband, "Deadpool" actor Ryan Reynolds, accusing them of defamation and extortion. The judge dismissed Baldoni's claims last June.

So both sides have now had claims tossed. Trial on the surviving retaliation claims is scheduled to begin May 18, and a brief phone conference following Thursday's ruling saw lawyers discussing the jury selection process.

What remains is a legal dispute stripped of its most explosive charge. The harassment allegation was the moral engine of Lively's public case, the claim that transformed a workplace dispute into something that demanded the full apparatus of cultural outrage. Without it, the remaining retaliation claims carry legal weight but far less narrative power.

The weaponization problem

There is a pattern worth noting. Serious legal frameworks built to protect genuine victims of harassment get stretched to cover grievances they were never designed to address. Title VII exists for employees facing hostile work environments, not for A-list actresses in contractual arrangements who take issue with an improvised moment during a love scene. Judge Liman recognized this by ruling on the independent contractor question before even reaching the merits of the conduct itself.

Every time a high-profile claim like this collapses under scrutiny, it does real damage to the credibility of people with legitimate complaints. The legal system worked here. It examined the facts, applied the law, and reached a conclusion that will disappoint those who had already rendered their verdict on social media. That is exactly what courts are supposed to do.

The trial next month will settle what's left. But the part of this case that captured the most public attention is now gone, dismissed not with ambiguity but with a ruling that said plainly: this was acting.