u/Fuzzy-Psychology-656

Jones Road, owned by Bobbi Brown, recently sponsored a video on Kjersti Flaa's channel @flaawsometalk. She also currently holds a Jones Road affiliate code

Who is Kjersti Flaa?

Kjersti is a former journalist who has turned to YouTube and recently found viral fame profiting from misogynistic smear campaigns

Four years ago during the height of the hate train against Amber Heard she repromoted a years old interview with Johnny Depp, praising him as polite and sweet paired with #JusticeForJohnnyDepp.

She then has since made several videos in support of him and has even been in contact with him personally

This was not a one off, she has made a pattern of digging up old interviews to pile on women and profit

During Anne Hathaway’s recent career resurgence Kjersti reposted an interview from back during the Les Miserables promotional tour, calling her out for refusing to sing on command and calling it “bad behaviour”. The video attracted enough negative attention that Anne Hathaway had to call and apologise for what was imo an absolutely normal response to a weird interview question over ten years ago.

What sent Kjersti viral was reposting another decade old interview with Blake Lively, which she claimed made her “want to quit her job”. The “congrats on your little bump” interview that was latched on to as proof that Blake Lively was a mean girl and therefore her sexual harassment by Justin Baldoni didn't matter.

Since that video two years ago, she has nearly exclusively turned her channel to anti Blake Lively (and anyone she associates with) /Pro Justin Baldoni content. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of videos all peddling the worst kind of misogynistic stereotypes and disinformation. She even sells merch with "congrats on your little bump" and various pro Justin Baldoni slogans through her Etsy shop.

Why does this matter?

Jones Road, owned by Bobbi Brown, launched their “I Am Me” campaign 3 years ago celebrating Women's History Month and last year invited Gloria Steinem, among other prominent women, to take part in their “I Am Me” YouTube series discussing feminism, equality, and empowerment.

This is how the brand wants us to see it: feminist and empowering.

Yet it sponsors a channel dedicated to tearing women down and making money by doing it.

Gloria Steinem herself was a signatory on an Open Letter in Support of Amber Heard, along with hundreds of Anti Domestic Violence charities, experts, and noted feminists.

But somehow it's ok for Jones Road to pay creators that support abusive men🫠

Even worse, the specific video the sponsored content appeared in was aimed at discrediting two anti-VAWG advocate creators for their support of Blake Lively: Expatriarch, an anti misogyny educator and MoreWithMJ, a feminist lawyer and legal educator. Two people who are actively doing the work and promoting the values Jones Road claims to espouse.

But this is who Bobbi and Jones Road chose to support with their money: a creator whose content is in company with the likes of Andy Signore and Candace Owens. It honestly beggars belief.

Source:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DbEHcz0NqSo/

Source: Brittany Kooienga IG

https://www.instagram.com/reels/DaxnFC5xQhQ/

What do we think the chances are of a GoFundMe in his immediate future?

Source: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DavKyTUxQEP/

Now that full discovery is proceeding in Amanda Ghost's defamation lawsuit against Rebel Wilson, Melissa Nathan, and TAG (after Wilson/Nathan/TAG withdrew their latest anti-SLAPP motion), Ghost has filed a motion to issue letters rogatory -- i.e., requests to foreign governments for service of process -- that will allow her to serve UK and Australian witnesses whose testimony and documents are needed to support her case.

The motion is necessary because these witnesses are beyond the reach of domestic U.S. subpoena power, so they need to be served via the Hague Convention, which created a mechanism for international cooperation for that purpose.

The specific witnesses whom Ghost hopes to serve are:

• Greer Simpkin, a local Australian producer on The Deb
• David Jowsey, another local producer
• Matt Reeder, a co-producer
• Tiare Tomaszewski, another producer
• Noni Roy, an assistant director
• Sue Bownds, Rebel Wilson's mother and a director of Camp Sugar, her company
• Lynne O'Brien, head of makeup on The Deb
• Pia Ashcroft, a senior film employee
• Charles Collier and Angharad Wood, Wilson's former UK-based agents

Most of these names will be familiar to people who followed the Charlotte MacInnes v. Rebel Wilson defamation trial in Australia a couple months ago, as most of them testified in that trial. (MacInnes is the actress whom Wilson claimed had complained about inappropriate behavior by Ghost; she sued Wilson over that claim, with a ruling still pending.) You can find most of their affidavits here: https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/macinnes-v-wilson

Notably, these witnesses' testimony/documents will mainly be relevant to Ghost's original defamation complaint, which revolves around Wilson's claims in an Instagram video and a publicly-circulated demand letter from Bryan Freedman that Ghost and her fellow producers behaved inappropriately toward MacInnes and embezzled funds from the film.

Presumably discovery is also proceeding on Ghost's September 2025 cross-complaint, which focuses on "smear websites" that accused her of sex trafficking. This discovery will involve testimony/documents from Nathan, Freedman, Jed Wallace, and various current or former TAG employees, but they are all U.S.-based so letters rogatory won't be necessary for them. We won't find out how discovery is going on that front unless and until motions related to that discovery are filed on the docket.

The motion for international judicial assistance is set to be heard on July 28. Trial in Ghost v. Wilson is currently scheduled for October.

Now that the lovely mods have expanded this sub's scope to allow discussion of additional ongoing cases, I wanted to go ahead and share an overview + some updates re one of the more interesting "extended universe" cases (i.e., those involving parties, facts, and discovery that overlap with Lively v. Wayfarer) -- namely, Alexa Nikolas's LA Superior Court lawsuit against Bryan Freedman, Melissa Nathan, and Jed Wallace/Street Relations.

First, an overview of the case since it hasn't been substantively discussed on this sub before and some members may not be familiar. (Full disclosure that this is adapted from a post I made a couple months ago on a different sub.)

Case overview

Former Nickelodeon star Alexa Nikolas filed a defamation lawsuit against attorney Bryan Freedman and crisis publicist Melissa Nathan on February 5, 2026. On April 7, 2026, she amended her complaint to add digital fixer Jed Wallace and his firm Street Relations as defendants.

You can read the full amended complaint, which has been uploaded to Google Drive by another Redditor, here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nYNfo0anP5CASS5FAPhGLSr6iKDkzyO7/view

Nikolas alleges that Freedman, Nathan, and Wallace are responsible for an anonymous "smear website" that called her a "sinister and criminal force" and made several other allegedly-defamatory statements about her, including claiming she'd blackmailed several ex-boyfriends and that her current husband is a serial sexual offender who endangers their children. Nikolas says she tried to discover who was behind the website when it was first published but only learned that it was most likely Freedman, Nathan, and Wallace from filings in Blake Lively's and Stephanie Jones' lawsuits -- after Jones commissioned an expert report to help confirm who was behind allegedly-defamatory websites about Jones, which ended up identifying negative sites about several other people (including Nikolas) with signs of identical authorship and SEO work.

In addition to adding Wallace and Street Relations as defendants, Nikolas's amended complaint

• adds a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) to go along with her defamation claim
• adds new language addressing the statute of limitations (SOL) issue -- which is a potential problem for her defamation claim -- by clarifying/alleging that she diligently took steps to try and identify who published the defamatory statements, that the statements' publishers actively took steps to obscure their identities, and that she only was able to discover their identities in December 2025. (There is California precedent that the SOL for defamation should be tolled -- ie paused -- under such circumstances.)
• adds a section with new backlink research, expanding on the research undertaken by Stephanie Jones' expert.

The final section on SEO backlinks with signs of common authorship names new potential targets of Nathan/Wallace/Freedman "smear websites" and/or negative SEO, along with the clients who allegedly commissioned those smears. (Press coverage is not the focus of this sub so I won't link, but Gary Baum of The Hollywood Reporter has investigated and written about several of these in the wake of Nikolas filing her FAC.)

Potential targets named:

• Anya Fernald, a chef and entrepreneur
• Peter Comisar, the founder of a private equity firm
• Victoria Shores
• Shelly Auguste
• Caeli La
• Shannon Ruth
• Attorney Craig Flanders

Alleged or confirmed Nathan/Wallace/Freedman clients named as allegedly having commissioned these negative campaigns, along with other SEO work to burnish their own reputations in response to negative publicity:

• Peter Attia
• Andrew Huberman
• Scooter Braun
• Dak Prescott
• Diplo
• Nick Carter

Where the case stands now

• On May 6, Nikolas filed proof of service for defendant Bryan Freedman, who was served by substituted service (which in this instance means a front desk person at his law firm's office was authorized to accept service on his behalf).
• On June 10, the court held a case management conference, during which the judge noted that the other defendants -- i.e., Nathan, Wallace, and Wallace's firm -- had not yet been served. Nikolas's attorneys were ordered to show cause why they hadn't achieved service for those defendants, with the possibility of sanctions if they can't provide a good reason, and the case management conference was continued (postponed) to September.
• On June 15, Bryan Freedman answered the complaint with a series of affirmative defenses (several of which, I will note, would normally be grounds for a motion to dismiss, so it is interesting that he answered instead of moving to dismiss or filing an anti-SLAPP motion).
• The next step will be for Nikolas's team to find a way to serve Nathan and Wallace, so the next thing we see on the docket will likely be either proof of service for them or a motion for alternative to service (asking to serve them by email, social media, etc. if the process server is having too much difficulty achieving personal service).

Interested in others' thoughts, and will try to keep posting updates on this case as they happen/I notice them! (Others are welcome to as well, of course - the LASC case number is 26SMCV00684.)