Blake Lively’s Jaw-Dropping Salary For Starring In ‘It Ends With Us’ Revealed Amid Her Legal War

Details have emerged revealing how much Blake Lively^[1] earned for her role in “It Ends With Us,” amid her ongoing legal battle with co-star Justin Baldoni^[2].

According to reports, the actress took home $1.75 million, with potential for additional earnings tied to the film’s performance.

Meanwhile, Blake Lively’s feud with Justin Baldoni continues to heat up ahead of its trial date next year. Discovery in the case ended on October 10, while the next status hearing is scheduled for October 21.

The Daily ^[3]Mail^[4]‘s Alison Boshoff has revealed that Blake Lively walked away with a substantial sum for starring in “It Ends With Us,” the movie that is currently at the center of her lawsuit with co-star Justin Baldoni.

The amount is reportedly $1.75 million for six weeks of shooting, representing fixed compensation.

Part of the contract also stated that the actress would earn a $200,000 bonus if she won an Oscar for her role as florist Lily Bloom, and $100,000 if she received a nomination. However, since she was neither nominated nor won, that clause was never triggered.

Additionally, Blake and her company were set to receive a $250,000 bonus if the film grossed more than three times its production budget at the box office after its August release.

That clause was likely triggered, as the movie went on to earn well beyond three times its budget despite mixed reviews.

The revelation about Lively’s alleged salary was preceded by reports about Baldonis’ former agent, Danny Greenberg, taking a swipe at Lively amid the ongoing feud.

Documents obtained by People Magazine^[5] revealed that the agent likened Lively’s behavior during the filming of the movie to “extortion,” according to a deposition transcript.

The remark was made in emails Greenberg helped Baldoni draft to distributor Sony, in which he also alleged about Lively’s “effort to gain control of the film.”

Greenberg pointed out, possibly during the deposition, that he wasn’t suggesting Lively’s alleged actions amounted to literal criminal extortion.

“My use of the word extortion there was referencing just cumulative behavior that both the studio and [production company Wayfarer Studios] and Justin was having to manage,” the WME Agent said.

The deposition also revealed that Greenberg believed Lively made threats regarding the film’s screening, as a “premier issue” was cited in conversations with Sony production executive Ange Giannetti.

In recent months, the discovery in the case has been ongoing, which has brought its fair share of twists and drama.

One major point of contention was whether Baldoni’s team would depose Taylor Swift, who was name-dropped in the lawsuit.

Last month, Baldoni’s team filed documents claiming that the pop star had agreed to sit for a deposition, a claim that was swiftly challenged by Lively’s legal team.

“At any point over the past six months, [Baldoni’s team] could have noticed a deposition, served a subpoena, and negotiated an agreeable time and place for this deposition. But they did not,” read a filing from the actress’s lawyers.

It further read, “Now,  long after dates and locations for all other party and third-party witnesses have been negotiated and agreed to [they have] come to this Court and demand the right to take this deposition — and this deposition alone — more than three weeks after the close of fact discovery and ten days after the parties are due to exchange expert reports.”

Swift ultimately did not provide any testimony, as the court denied Baldoni’s team’s request for an extension to depose the singer.

On October 10, the timeline for deposition ended, with Lively and Baldoni’s sides now left to determine how best to utilize the information they gathered.

Next in the case is a status hearing scheduled for October 21, which will ensure the proceedings are moving forward as expected.

For now, the trial date remains set for March 2026, with both Lively and Baldoni expected to testify.

Meanwhile, although speculation about a possible settlement has swirled since the case began, neither party has made any public move toward one. This has further fueled the likelihood that the case will indeed go to trial.