Representatives of Wendy Williams are claiming the creators of a devastating television documentary about the talk show host “viciously and shamelessly exploited” her with the project, which chronicles Williams’ physical and mental decline after being diagnosed with dementia and aphasia.

On Tuesday, Williams’ legal team filed an amended complaint in New York County Supreme Court. It demands that all the proceeds from the Lifetime special “Where Is Wendy Williams?” be used to pay for her extensive medical costs.

The lawsuit, which was detailed in a Hollywood Reporter article, states that Williams was paid only $82,000 for the documentary special, which the complaint say intentionally depicted the retired TV personality “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 complaint states.

Though the documentary’s exact earnings have not been disclosed, Lifetime said the 4½-hour film, which premiered in February, was its biggest nonfiction debut in two years.

The lawsuit, which spans 75 pages, further claims the documentary portrayed Williams as a “laughingstock and drunkard, implicitly responsible for her own continued suffering” after its creators promised Williams the project would be “positive and beneficial” for her career and image.

The amended complaint also argues that Williams did not have the mental or legal capacity to agree to the contract to create the documentary, making any written agreement invalid.

Williams has been living under a court-ordered guardianship since May 2022.

Williams’ legal guardian, attorney Sabrina Morrissey, initially tried to block the release of “Where is Wendy Williams?” after the release of its trailer.

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

Though the temporary restraining was granted, the ruling was later reversed on appeal on First Amendment grounds.