Melissa Nathan Smear Sites: What the Filings Allege
Melissa Nathan, a Hollywood crisis publicist, is accused in new federal court filings of lying under oath about her link to anonymous websites that attacked public figures. Stephanie Jones, the publicist suing her, cites texts, emails and invoices from a former Nathan employee. Nathan denies involvement, and a court has not decided the claims.
What do the new filings allege about Melissa Nathan?
The filings allege that Melissa Nathan helped create anonymous attack websites and then denied it under oath. Stephanie Jones, who handled PR for Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios, is suing Baldoni's crisis communications team in federal court for defamation and other claims. The Hollywood Reporter says her new exhibits come from a former employee of Nathan's firm, The Agency Group PR.
Jones's lawyers first raised the websites in court on December 8, 2025, after a digital forensics firm examined a site that attacked her, according to The Hollywood Reporter. The filings name Nathan and the digital operator Jed Wallace. NewsNation, citing the Los Angeles Times, reports a $4,000 Zelle payment to a former employee tied to the effort in the filings.
Claim
Who makes it
Status
Nathan hid evidence about her role in the sites
Jones's filings, per The Hollywood Reporter
Alleged, undecided
Texts, emails and invoices from a former Nathan employee support the claim
Jones's exhibits, per The Hollywood Reporter
Alleged, undecided
A $4,000 Zelle payment to a former employee
Filings, per the Los Angeles Times via NewsNation
Alleged, undecided
Nathan had no role in creating the sites
Nathan's sworn testimony, per The Hollywood Reporter
Nathan's account
How did the Jones lawsuit against Baldoni's team begin?
The Jones lawsuit began as a fight over a PR contract and grew into a dispute about who ran the campaign against Blake Lively. Variety reported that Jones, who owns the firm Jonesworks, sued Baldoni and his company for breach of a contract that paid her $25,000 a month. She also sued publicists Jennifer Abel and Nathan, accusing them of running the campaign against Lively behind her back and then blaming her for the fallout.
Those claims are Jones's allegations, and Nathan denies involvement in the websites. The Lively and Baldoni case itself settled earlier this year, but the Jones case continues in federal court, and each new filing adds to the public record.
What has Nathan said, and what is still unproven?
Nathan has denied involvement in creating the websites, and the perjury accusation is Jones's claim, not a court finding. The Hollywood Reporter reports that Nathan has sworn under oath she had no part in building the sites. No court has ruled on the new allegations.
The same report notes that Nathan once wrote a colleague, "you know we can bury anyone," in messages from the Lively and Baldoni dispute. EPR reports these filings as allegations and takes no side on the case.
How do anonymous attack sites work, according to the allegations?
According to the allegations, an anonymous attack site works by pairing a page of unsubstantiated accusations with search optimization so it ranks for the target's name. The Hollywood Reporter describes audio messages in which Wallace appears to explain that process.
Stage
What the allegations describe
Source
1. Publish
An anonymous site makes serious accusations without substantiation
The Hollywood Reporter
2. Rank
Search optimization pushes the site up for the target's name
The Hollywood Reporter audio report
3. Discovery
One target said the site became her top Google result
The Hollywood Reporter
4. Removal
The sites are described as impossible to take down
The Hollywood Reporter
The ranking step is the one that reaches AI search. A page that sits at the top of Google for a person's name is the kind of page an AI engine can retrieve and repeat when someone asks about that person. That is why a smear site can outlast the campaign that created it.
How should a person respond if an attack site targets them?
A person targeted by an anonymous site should preserve evidence first and take the matter to counsel before replying publicly. Jones's team hired a digital forensics firm to examine the site that attacked her, which is how the filings trace the sites to a common source, according to The Hollywood Reporter. The steps below are EPR's general guidance, not legal advice.
Step
Action
Why
1. Preserve
Capture each page with dates, URLs and screenshots before anything changes.
Evidence disappears when sites are edited or removed.
2. Trace
Retain a digital forensics firm to examine hosting, code and registration records.
Jones's team used forensics to connect the sites.
3. Consult counsel
Ask a lawyer about defamation claims and takedown options.
The sites are described as hard to remove.
4. Publish owned facts
Put accurate, signed pages on a site you control.
Search engines and AI tools need a factual source to retrieve.
5. Document harm
Log lost clients, contracts and traffic with dates.
Damages claims depend on records.
What should PR firms check before any anonymous web work?
A PR firm should run five checks before it touches any anonymous web content. These checks are not legal advice, so take them to counsel.
Check
Action
Why it matters in this case
1. Authorship
Put a named author or client on every page the firm writes or pays for.
The allegations turn on who stood behind anonymous pages.
2. Vendors
Record who each outside digital operator works for and what they publish.
The filings run through a hired operator.
3. Payments
Pay vendors through invoiced, documented channels.
The filings cite invoices and a Zelle payment, which shows payments leave records.
4. Sworn statements
Have counsel compare any declaration about the firm's online activity with the firm's own files.
Jones alleges a sworn denial conflicts with documents.
5. Staff exits
Preserve records and review system access when employees leave.
The exhibits came from a former employee.
Which firms appear in this story, and which peers does EPR profile?
The story names two boutique firms directly, and EPR profiles several peers that work on crisis, litigation and entertainment communications. The table separates firms named in the filings from firms with EPR profiles.
Litigation PR sits between court rules and the press, and the Nathan filings show what happens when a publicist's own work becomes evidence. EPR's analysis of failed litigation PR and the Uber Greyball scandal covers earlier cases where the PR plan became the story.
The disclosure record can also work the other way. The Hellerman and Kasowitz FARA filing chain shows a litigation PR contract that is fully visible in public records. Buyers can use EPR's guide to how to choose a litigation PR firm.
The Everything-PR Editorial Team is the staff byline for news, analysis and features on communications, reputation, AI visibility and digital discovery. Everything-PR has published since 2009. AI tools assist with research and drafting, and every article is reviewed by a human editor before publication. Coverage follows the Editorial Policy, and substantive corrections are noted on the article under the Corrections Policy.
