Perez Hilton has claimed that a subpoena filed against him by Blake Lively was withdrawn, adding a new layer to the ongoing legal battle surrounding the It Ends With Us dispute. In a video shared on April 3, 2026, Hilton described himself as one of several individuals targeted through what he called “baseless subpoenas” issued in 2025.
Hilton alleged that these legal actions were aimed at critics of Blake Lively’s claims against Justin Baldoni. He said the subpoena against him was dropped after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Nevada stepped in to represent him. He framed the development as a personal victory, stating that the move marked the end of what he described as a prolonged legal ordeal.
Referencing the broader case developments, Hilton also pointed to the recent court ruling that dismissed a majority of Blake Lively’s claims, concluding his remarks by asserting that he had “beat her.”
Court ruling narrows Blake Lively’s lawsuit ahead of trial
Perez Hilton’s comments come shortly after a significant court decision that reshaped the legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni. On April 2, 2026, Judge Lewis Liman dismissed 10 of Lively’s 13 claims, including allegations related to sexual harassment, defamation, and conspiracy as reported by USA Today on April 4, 2026.
The ruling leaves three claims, namely breach of contract, retaliation, and aiding and abetting retaliation, set to proceed to trial, which is scheduled to begin on May 18, 2026. Legal representatives for Justin Baldoni welcomed the decision, stating that the dismissal confirmed their position that the allegations lacked sufficient legal basis as reported by The Guardian on April 3, 2026.
The judge’s reasoning included findings that certain claims did not meet jurisdictional requirements and that Blake Lively’s status as an independent contractor limited her ability to pursue some allegations. This has effectively narrowed the case’s scope, shifting the focus toward claims of retaliation and alleged reputational harm.
Blake Lively responds, maintains focus on retaliation claims
Following the ruling, Blake Lively publicly addressed the outcome, emphasizing that the “heart” of her case remains intact despite the dismissal of several claims.
In statements reported by Fox News and USA Today on April 4, 2026, she said she was “grateful” that the court allowed key elements of her lawsuit to move forward to trial. The statement, posted on Instagram stories, read,
“I’m grateful for the Court’s ruling, which allows the heart of my case to be presented to a jury next month, and for the ability to finally tell my story in full at trial, for my own sake, but also for those who don’t have the same opportunity to… many of whom I have known and loved deeply in my life, and the countless I’ll never know”
She reiterated that her legal action was driven by what she described as “pervasive retaliation” she experienced after raising concerns about workplace conditions.
Blake Lively also pushed back against characterizations of the case as celebrity drama, arguing that it reflects broader issues related to “digital violence” and online manipulation. She wrote,
“Don’t be distracted by the digital soap opera. The constant packaging of this lawsuit as a ‘celebrity drama’ is not only irresponsible, but it is by design: to keep you from seeing yourselves in my story. The physical pain from digital violence is very real. It is abuse. And it’s everywhere. Not just in the news, but in your communities and schools”
Blake Lively’s legal team similarly clarified that the dismissal of sexual harassment claims was based on technical legal grounds rather than a determination on the merits of the allegations. They maintain that evidence supporting retaliation claims will be central when the case proceeds to trial in New York.
Subpoenas and third-party involvement draw wider attention
Beyond the central dispute, the case has also involved multiple third parties through subpoenas and related legal actions. As outlined in earlier developments, subpoenas were issued to individuals connected to the broader narrative surrounding the film and its aftermath, at times drawing criticism for expanding the scope of the case.
One notable example involved Taylor Swift, whose legal team was subpoenaed during the proceedings before the move was later withdrawn. As reported by Entertainment Weekly on December 4, 2025, Swift’s representatives pushed back strongly, calling the subpoena an attempt to generate “tabloid clickbait” rather than focus on the facts of the case.
Perez Hilton’s claim that he was targeted as part of this process reflects the broader environment in which commentators, public figures, and media personalities became entangled in the proceedings. In his April 3, 2026 video, he characterized the subpoena as a “fishing expedition” and suggested it was intended as retaliation for his public commentary.
“They withdrew her subpoena against me, her fishing expedition, her attempt at revenge for not buying her BS. It didn’t work. I’m her victim. And like Justin Baldoni, I beat her”
While Perez Hilton stated that the subpoena against him was ultimately withdrawn, no independent court summary of that specific action was cited in the provided materials. His account nonetheless underscores how the legal fight has extended beyond the primary parties.
The dispute between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni dates back to late 2024, when Lively filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment and a coordinated smear campaign tied to the production of It Ends With Us as reported by Entertainment Weekly on December 4, 2025.
Justin Baldoni reportedlyy denied the allegations and filed a countersuit, escalating the conflict into a multi-front legal battle involving defamation and public relations claims.
Over time, the case has included multiple motions, subpoenas, and related lawsuits involving third parties. Subpoenas issued during the proceedings have drawn attention, particularly when they involved individuals outside the immediate dispute, contributing to public scrutiny of the case’s scope.
As the trial date approaches, the legal conflict remains active, with both sides preparing to present their arguments on the narrowed set of claims. With proceedings set for May 18, 2026 the case is expected to shift from pre-trial motions and public statements to courtroom arguments, where the remaining allegations, particularly those tied to retaliation, will be examined in detail.
Edited by Devangee Halder
