Media Law: “It Ends with Us:” Actor and Director Contractual Relationships

Written by Shriya Alli, Alex Bowles, Raphael Caballes, Abia Siddiqui, and Jakob Tawney

Edited by Savannah Miller and Anna Ramesh

What is the relationship between actors and directors?

Actor and director agreements outline various norms that guide each party's involvement in a production. These terms include the specific compensation packages covering base pay, bonuses and residuals as well as the rights, obligations and responsibilities specific to these positions. Legal agreements define the relationship among actors, directors and their production companies before the beginning of any project. The legal protections extend to both the actor and the entity directing; however, the contractual guidelines can vary on a case by case basis. One key aspect of a good contractual agreement is the work environment. Actors, directors and production companies define the work environment as transparent communication about working hours, breaks, as well as safety measures taken on set to ensure the well-being of actors. Finally, such agreements might also address union requirements and responsibilities to ensure compliance with relevant guilds including the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) and the Directors Guild of America (DGA). The SAG-AFTRA is a combination of two formerly independent labor unions that work to protect actors, singers, and other media professionals. Additionally, the DGA protects the financial and creative rights of directors and members of their team in film, sports, commercials, and other forms of media.

Background

Contractual disputes in the entertainment industry are nothing new. From battles over creative control to allegations of misconduct, actors and studios have often found themselves at odds over the terms of their working relationships. One of the most famous early examples is the 1944 case De Havilland v. Warner Bros., where actress Olivia de Havilland successfully challenged Warner Bros' practice of tacking suspension periods onto her contract. The California Court of Appeals ruled in her favor, effectively limiting studios' ability to control performers through long-term personal service contracts. This case helped lay the groundwork for modern disputes around actor autonomy and workplace fairness.

In the early 2000s, actor Keanu Reeves found himself in a public dispute over the film The Watcher. Reeves alleged he never agreed to star in the movie and that someone forged his signature. While he could not prove the forgery in court, the case highlighted how even major stars can be caught in contractual webs that leave them little choice but to comply or face legal consequences. These kinds of disputes show how hard it can be to separate professional obligations from personal boundaries, especially in high-stakes, high-visibility projects. The lawsuit ultimately did not go to trial, as Reeves chose not to pursue legal action further, citing the emotional and financial toll it would take. Despite his claims, he fulfilled his contractual obligations and completed the film, later stating that he did so to avoid a lengthy legal battle.

"It Ends With Us" Lawsuit

The ongoing legal drama between actress Blake Lively and actor-director Justin Baldoni follows the precedent set by similar high-profile disputes. The two co-stars' behind-the-scenes tensions on their collaboration on the film "It Ends with Us" have spilled into a highly public legal fight. The film follows the story of Lily Bloom (Lively) who meets Ryle Kincaid (Baldoni) in a chance encounter, and the two fall in love. However, as their relationship progresses, Kincaid becomes increasingly controlling and abusive, further complicated by reemergence of Bloom's past relationship with her first love Atlas Corrigan (Brandon Sklenar) and her pregnancy and birth of her daughter, Emerson. Following the film's release, in December 2024, Lively filed a civil rights complaint in the case Lively v. Wayfarer Studios, naming both Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios, his production company, as defendants. The complaint alleges that Baldoni engaged in sexual harassment during the production stages of the film and failed to provide a safe work environment. These claims are believed to have originated from the set not having a professional intimacy coordinator during the filming period.

The hiring of a professional intimacy coordinator was Baldoni's obligation, as the film was produced under his company, Wayfarer Studios, which holds contractual responsibility for on-set safety. Due to the movie's sensitive subject matter—including abuse and coercion—the absence of a certified intimacy coordinator created particularly vulnerable conditions for the actors. According to court filings in Lively v. Wayfarer Studios, the situation escalated when Lively allegedly declined to meet with the initial coordinator. Baldoni then took it upon himself to work through scenes with Lively directly. This decision left Baldoni exposed to liability since he was neither professionally trained in intimacy coordination nor protected under the contract's provisions regarding such roles.

Moreover, after Lively's initial civil rights complaint, Lively then alleged she faced retaliation after voicing her concerns. Lively's attorneys accused Baldoni's attorney, Bryan Freedman, of creating a website on which he then released documents and communications between the two stars. Lively's attorney stated that the information could taint the jury pool and damage careers. In response, Freedman held his ground, arguing that the opposition was attempting to silence the truth. The publicly released evidence was essential to refuting Lively's allegation, according to Baldoni's team. The prior complaint then escalated into a formal lawsuit, with Lively accusing Baldoni and his team of orchestrating smear campaigns or intentional efforts to undermine an individual's or group's reputation or character.

In response, Baldoni filed a $400 million countersuit against Lively, husband Ryan Reynolds, and publicist Leslie Solane. Baldoni's suit alleges defamation, civil extortion, and invasion of privacy. Additionally, Baldoni accused Lively of trying to take control of the film, as Lively commissioned editor Shane Reid to create alternate cuts of the film. Moreover, this legal battle is ongoing. The trial is scheduled for March 2026 in the Southern District of New York, a federal court, where Lively initially filed her complaint. Still, the outcome of this lawsuit will rely on the evidence both parties bring forward, particularly in terms of whether Baldoni can prove actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth of Lively's sexual harassment and additional allegations.

The allegations and countersuits raise crucial questions regarding how courts handle misconduct claims, contractual breaches and the role of reputational harm in legal disputes. Additionally, widespread media coverage has heightened discussions on due process and impartiality in high-profile celebrity legal disputes. This case highlights how public narratives increasingly shape legal disputes, making a fair resolution harder to reach. Taken together, past cases and the current dispute underscore just how fraught contracts can be in the entertainment world. Whether the issue is personal service terms, alleged misconduct, or the balance between privacy and public image, courts must sort out messy and deeply personal disputes under the lens of legal precedent. What happens next in Lively v. Wayfarer Studios could have real implications for how actor and director conflicts could be handled going forward, both in courtrooms and behind the scenes in Hollywood.

Conclusion

The lawsuit between Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively, along with Lively's publicist and husband, has garnered significant public attention due to the high-profile nature of the parties involved and serious allegations on both sides. Baldoni's countersuit alleges defamation and extortion while Lively accuses Baldoni of sexual harassment and retaliation. Ultimately, this case highlights broader issues in Hollywood, including the challenges in addressing misconduct allegations and difficulties in workplace dynamics between powerful industry figures and their colleagues.