Rebel Wilson’s lawsuit exposes a PR plot that hit Amanda Ghost

Rebel Wilson is back in the courtroom, this time fighting a producer who claims she tried to ruin his reputation. On August 25, new filings in the California Superior Court linked Wilson’s dispute to Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni’s former “It Ends With Us” battle.

The documents show that Wilson allegedly ordered a PR firm to create anonymous websites targeting former collaborator Amanda Ghost, who has been at the center of both cases.

The filings reveal text exchanges between Wilson and entertainment publicist Melissa Nathan. In one message, Wilson wrote, “Question – did you receive my text for the website?” The alleged reply from Nathan was, “Morning, so sorry I was asleep.

We have full text for the website we hadn’t heard from you – I know that it was a tough few days your end so I didn’t want to keep bugging. Your business manager has already sorted this with Bryan’s office.

It will be up shortly once this is done.” These messages suggest Wilson directed Nathan to produce sites that would damage Ghost’s reputation.

Amanda Ghost, who worked with Wilson on her 2024 directorial debut *The Deb*, claims the websites accused her of “procuring young women for the pleasure of the extremely wealthy” and labeled her “the Indian Ghislaine Maxwell.” Ghost alleges that Nathan and TAG PR collectively facilitated the publication of these defamatory sites.

The allegations connect back to Justin Baldoni, who represented Lively in a lawsuit that was settled in May after a countersuit by Baldoni’s former lawyer, Bryan Freedman. Jed Wallace was also named in texts, depositions, and filings as playing a key role in the alleged smear campaign against Lively.

## Background & Context

The legal drama began when Blake Lively sued the director of *It Ends With Us* for a purported smear campaign orchestrated by Justin Baldoni. The case settled in May after Baldoni and his lawyer, Jed Wallace, denied the accusations.

Their denial was mirrored in the current filings, where both Nathan and the PR firm TAG PR are accused of creating defamatory content about Amanda Ghost. Ghost’s involvement with Wilson on *The Deb* led to a falling out that now fuels the lawsuit.

The August 25 documents were filed in California, but the trial will take place in Los Angeles in January 2027.

## What People Are Saying

A lawyer for Rebel Wilson told a news outlet that “the filing was ‘one‑sided and thus incomplete,’ adding that ‘there are two sides to every story, and Ms.

Wilson looks forward to telling her side at the trial in this disputed matter.’” Wilson’s attorney emphasized that the documents only present one perspective and that she plans to counter the allegations in court.

Meanwhile, Melissa Nathan’s alleged reply shows a willingness to cooperate with the PR firm’s operations, though the content of the sites remains contested. Amanda Ghost’s claims, supported by email drafts and website screenshots, highlight the severity of the accusations, including parallels to Ghislaine Maxwell.

Both sides have denied wrongdoing in the smear campaign. Wilson’s lawyer notes that the case against her is “one‑sided,” while Ghost alleges that Nathan and TAG PR actively disseminated defamatory websites. The legal filings do not yet include responses from Nathan, Baldoni, or Wallace beyond their denials in the earlier Lively lawsuit.

## What Happens Next

The court documents set a trial date for January 2027 in Los Angeles, where Wilson will appear alongside Amanda Ghost. No additional filings have been submitted since August 25, so the case remains at its early procedural stage.

The California Superior Court will decide whether the alleged communications and website content constitute actionable defamation. Until the trial, both parties are likely preparing evidence to support their positions. No settlement negotiations have been reported, and the outcome will hinge on court proceedings.

Rebel Wilson’s legal saga now intersects with a high‑profile Hollywood smear case, illustrating how accusations of reputational damage can cross paths across unrelated disputes. As the trial approaches, the industry will watch closely to see how the courts interpret these claims and whether a precedent for digital defamation emerges.