Wendy Williams Was Paid Solely $82,000 For Controversial Documentary: Lawsuit

Representatives of Wendy Williams are claiming the creators of a devastating tv documentary concerning the speak present host “viciously and shamelessly exploited” her with the venture, which chronicles Williams’ bodily and psychological decline after being recognized with dementia and aphasia.

On Tuesday, Williams’ authorized crew filed an amended grievance in New York County Supreme Court docket. It calls for that each one the proceeds from the Lifetime particular “Where Is Wendy Williams?” be used to pay for her intensive medical prices.

The lawsuit, which was detailed in a Hollywood Reporter article, states that Williams was paid solely $82,000 for the documentary particular, which the grievance say deliberately depicted the retired TV character “in a highly demeaning and embarrassing manner.”

“This is a paltry sum for the use of highly invasive, humiliating footage that portrayed her in the confusing throes of dementia, while Defendants, who have profited on the streaming of the Program have likely already earned millions,” the grievance states.

Although the documentary’s actual earnings haven’t been disclosed, Lifetime stated the 4½-hour movie, which premiered in February, was its largest nonfiction debut in two years.

The lawsuit, which spans 75 pages, additional claims the documentary portrayed Williams as a “laughingstock and drunkard, implicitly responsible for her own continued suffering” after its creators promised Williams the venture could be “positive and beneficial” for her profession and picture.

The amended grievance additionally argues that Williams didn’t have the psychological or authorized capability to conform to the contract to create the documentary, making any written settlement invalid.

Williams has been residing underneath a court-ordered guardianship since Could 2022.

Williams’ authorized guardian, lawyer Sabrina Morrissey, initially tried to dam the discharge of “Where is Wendy Williams?” after the discharge of its trailer.

In a February request for a brief restraining order, Morrissey wrote that she was involved concerning the “embarrassing, harmful, degrading, and untruthful nature of the documentary and its use of footage” through which Williams was “patently disabled and incompetent.”

Although the non permanent restraining was granted, the ruling was later reversed on attraction on First Modification grounds.