In footage from the set of “It Ends With Us,” Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively engage in a polite, even friendly, discussion about how to show their characters falling in love. Should they kiss? Or is it more romantic for them to talk?

He smiles. She laughs. Yet, they were growing to despise each other.

She thought Baldoni — the co-star, director, and studio head — was overstepping her boundaries; he felt she couldn’t take direction. That simple interaction from May 2023 — which might in other circumstances have been marked down to “creative differences” — has flourished over the last month into an all-out legal war, leading to a civil rights complaint and four lawsuits (so far).

In this still-unfolding controversy, Baldoni and Lively are each primarily concerned with their public reputations. But the longer it goes on, the more each may need a clear legal win to secure vindication.

“Predominantly, these are PR campaigns dressed up as lawsuits,” says Gregory Doll, a litigator who has handled high-profile entertainment cases. “But there are teeth in the lawsuits.”

The lawsuits allege a slew of charges and counter-charges. Boiled down, Lively is accusing Baldoni of harassment and retaliation, and Baldoni is accusing her of defamation.

Baldoni sued Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and their publicist, Leslie Sloane. In a separate suit, he also went after the New York Times, claiming that it libeled him by taking text messages out of context and parroting Lively’s narrative. (Baldoni’s former publicist, Steph Jones, also sued him.)

Regardless of the merits of the Times suit, the paper has a procedural mechanism to at least stall it for a couple of years. The Times can file a motion to strike under the California anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that Baldoni is trying to silence speech protected by the First Amendment. Even if a judge rules against the paper, it can still file an immediate appeal, which would tie up the case for a while.

In the other defamation suit, Lively and the others are accused of spreading a false narrative to the New York Times. Baldoni’s team filed the suit in federal court in New York — even though California law governs her contract — meaning that Lively and the other defendants will not be able to avail themselves of the California anti-SLAPP law.

They can seek to dismiss the 179-page complaint, in part on the grounds that it reads like an extended counter-narrative, rather than articulating the alleged defamation point-by-point.

“They have to point to which statements they think were false, what establishes they were statements of fact and not opinion, and show they’re not subject to some privilege,” says Caitlin Kovacs, an attorney at Benesch who works on defamation cases.

For most of it, she says, Baldoni appears to argue that Lively has twisted his words or taken things out of context — not that she has invented them out of thin air.

“It seems like there are core allegations he doesn’t really refute,” Kovacs says. “She says he called her sexy. He admits to that. She says he told her she smelled good. He admitted he did that. Those are going to be hard statements to turn around and use as a basis for a defamation claim.”

In both cases, Baldoni’s team would also have to find a way around the privileges that protect litigants’ right to sue and the media’s right to cover lawsuits. The Times could simply point to Lively’s civil rights complaint, and say it had every right to inform its readers about a legal controversy.

“It’s unlikely that Lively or anyone who is a defendant in these cases would have liability for anything they put in a court filing,” Kovacs says.

In contrast, Lively’s suit against Baldoni does not suffer from obvious procedural hurdles. The claims of sexual harassment and retaliation require fact-based analysis, meaning the suit could easily survive to summary judgment or go all the way to trial.

On the harassment claim, a jury would have to find that Baldoni and producer Jamey Heath engaged in “severe or pervasive” misconduct sufficient to create a hostile work environment.

The sizzle of Lively’s suit, however, lies in the retaliation claim. Her lawyers were able to obtain excellent evidence, in the form of text messages from Baldoni’s publicists in which they spoke of trying to “destroy” or “bury” her. Lively alleges that Baldoni’s team was smearing her as payback for speaking up about the harassment.

To prove that, Lively would not have to show that her harassment claim was valid. But she would have to show that she suffered an “adverse employment action,” typically something like a demotion or termination, as a consequence of speaking up.

“That’s going to be tough to prove,” says attorney Camron Dowlatshahi, who specializes in employment litigation.

Dowlatshahi notes that the alleged smear campaign took place after Lively’s employment was effectively over. He also argues it could be difficult to prove damages, such as a lost film role, due to negative posts or articles purportedly planted by Baldoni’s publicity team.

Baldoni also sued Lively on grounds aside from defamation. In a contract interference claim, he alleges she and Reynolds pressured his agency, WME, to drop him — which WME denies. He also alleges Lively seized creative control over “It Ends With Us” — though he did not sue Sony, which allegedly granted Lively the power to make her own cut.

Baldoni’s suit also stated a claim of “civil extortion,” arguing that she used false allegations and threats to gain leverage over him.

In other words, attorneys say there’s enough substance to the litigation to keep it going for some time. The process may also generate its own momentum as the animosity builds, potentially leading to a repeat of the defamation trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.

Dowlatshahi describes the situation as a “a pure PR play from every angle,” but says it may be the lawyers’ obligation to try the case in the court of public opinion.

“My role is to best serve my client,” he says. “If my client is hellbent on preserving his or her reputation and hurting the reputation of the other person, then that’s what I’m going to do.”

Eventually, though, they may wear each other down enough to consider an amicable resolution.

“I do think at some point both sides will realize there will be a public fatigue with this back and forth,” he says. “Reputationally, they’re not benefiting either way.”

Doll agrees: “Once the dust settles, calmer heads are going to prevail.”