Blake Lively, Justin Baldoni settle 'It Ends With Us' retaliation lawsuit, dodging trial 43%

By Molly Crane-Newman0%

5/4/2026, 2:02:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Framing Effect, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 19.8% saturation with 100 hits. Analysis detected 358 faulty-reasoning hits from 506 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.4% and a BS Rank of 43% (12,616 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 57.60% of the article peer group.

Blake Lively agreed to settle her retaliation lawsuit against Justin Baldoni’s production company Wayfarer Studios, dodging a trial over the bitter Hollywood feud weeks before it was set to begin and bringing an end to a conflict that has sparked widespread interest for nearly two years. 
In a joint statement that did not outline the terms of the settlement, lawyers for parties on both sides said “It Ends with Us,” the film about domestic violence that Lively and Baldoni starred alongside each other in, was “a source of pride to all of us who worked to bring it to life.” 
They said that they hoped the resolution would allow everyone to move on from the feud that emerged during filming, during which Lively had alleged Baldoni sexually harassed her and his PR firm aided and abetted a subsequent smear campaign. 
“Raising awareness, and making a meaningful impact in the lives of domestic violence survivors  and all survivors  is a goal that we stand behind. 
We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. 
Lively deserved to be heard,” the statement read. 
“We remain firmly committed to workplaces free of improprieties and unproductive environments. 
It is our sincere hope that this brings closure and allows all involved to move forward constructively and in peace, including a respectful environment online.” 
The case was slated for trial May 18, with a jury set to hear Lively’s claims alleging Wayfarer Studios retaliated against her for accusing Baldoni of sexually harassing her during filming and the PR firm of aiding and abetting a smear campaign. 
The case also included breach-of-contract allegations. 
The suit filed in December 2024 initially accused Baldoni of sexually harassing Lively throughout filming the adaption of Colleen Hoover’s bestselling 2016 novel about domestic violence. 
The actress said when she came forward, Baldoni and his PR team orchard a vicious smear campaign against her after she spoke out about feeling unsafe on set. 
Manhattan federal Judge Lewis Liman dismissed the bulk of claims last month, partly finding Lively couldn’t allege she was sexually harassed on set because she was considered an independent contractor and not Baldoni’s employee. 
But the judge left significant portions of the suit intact, allowing Lively’s lawyers to allege sexual harassment while laying a foundation. 
The judge said questions about what happened during filming should be decided by a jury. 
“[A] person in her position could have understood the workplace to at times reflect a gendered and sexualized view of women and a disregard for their privacy sufficient to make it reasonable to complain about a hostile work environment based on sex or gender,” Liman’s April opinion read. 
Writing of the retaliation allegations, Liman found, “There also is some direct evidence that the plan to destroy Lively and her career was put into action. 
In addition to boosting videos of himself, Baldoni requested that the digital team amplify a video criticizing Lively as insensitive to domestic violence survivors.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 3.6%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 2.8%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.7%Molly Crane-Newman: 9.3%newyorkdailynews: 6.1%Framing Effect11.7%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.8%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.9%newyorkdailynews: 2.8%Optimism Bias12.8%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 1.3%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 19.8%Molly Crane-Newman: 15.6%newyorkdailynews: 9.8%Negativity Bias19.8%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 2.1%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 1.7%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 1.9%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 2.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 2.3%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 3.2%newyorkdailynews: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.1%Molly Crane-Newman: 12.9%newyorkdailynews: 7.4%Appeal to Emotion5.1%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 1.4%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.9%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 2.3%newyorkdailynews: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 1.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.7%Molly Crane-Newman: 1.8%newyorkdailynews: 2.1%Unattributed Quote10.7%This article: 10.7%Molly Crane-Newman: 1.7%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection10.7%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 6.4%newyorkdailynews: 6.7%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 2.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Crane-Newman: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

506 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker19%attributed speech408writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 54 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageJudge Lewis Liman • 48 words • 0.0% coverageJudge Lewis Liman • 26 words • 0.0% coverageJudge Lewis Liman • 24 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Judge Lewis Liman

27%flagged-word coverage
98 attributed words100% of attributed speech57% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Unattributed Quote-13.2 ptsWriter: 13.2%Judge Lewis Liman: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-13.2 ptsWriter: 13.2%Judge Lewis Liman: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.