Lindsay Lohan: Milkaholic?
Just a few weeks ago, I paid a little tribute to those adorably sassy E-Trade Babies. Little did I know then that those babies lives and livelihoods would be threatened by something so EVIL, so SINISTER, that the mere utterance of its name is enough to send shivers down the spines of millions of Americans . . . LINDSAY!
It all started during Super Bowl XLIV, when the E-Trade babies found the courage to show us a side of them that they had never shown before. Those cute and innocent babies have . . . GIRLFRIENDS!
All seemed well in E-Trade Baby Land. The truth was out. The time had finally come for the world to accept the E-Trade babies as the diaper-chasing heartthrobs they were. Unforunately, LINDSAY could not accept the E-Trade babies’ happiness. (Plus, she was really low on cash, and hadn’t been featured on TMZ in nearly a month!). So, she did what any red-blooded (and haired) teen star (?) would do. She slapped those smiling infants with a lawsuit for . . . 100 Million Dollars!
LINDSAY claimed the E-Trade commercial was all about her. After all, it did feature a baby named “LINDSAY,” and she WAS a milkaholic, and . . . well, you saw that Got Milk ad! Those mustaches don’t make themselves . . .
Lindsay Lohan’s version of Temptation Island.
What is interesting about this case (and by “interesting” I mean both ironic and moronic), is that Lohan is not claiming that E-Trade defamed her in the commercial. In other words, assuming the baby WAS actually supposed to represent Lohan (hahahahahahaha), the “actress” is not asserting that the commercial wrongly implied that she is a slutty bimbo with a drinking problem. Quite the contrary. In order for her legal claim to succeed, these things must all be TRUE about Lindsay!
You can’t handle the TRUTH!
The tort that Lohan is alleging that E-Trade violated, arises from California’s Right of Publicity Law (a favorite among the Hollywood crowd, for obvious reasons). The law was created on the premise that public figures (actresses, actors, politicians etc.) are lucrative money-making entities in and of themselves, sometimes more so, even, than the products they help to create. Therefore, if another business profits from using a celebrity’s name or likeness, that celebrity should be entitled to a cut of the profits earned. (Legal geeks, like me, can find the law, in its entirety, here).
Assuming the California court system doesn’t throw this case out, like the stinky poopy diaper that it is . . .
and this case actually makes it to court, in order for Lohan to win her 100 Million Dollars
she will have to prove that:
(1) she is a “celebrity” (hahahaha), whose name and likeness is so HOT that merely mentioning it in the media can earn a company millions of dollars;
(2) the “easy,” not-too-bright, alcoholic milkaholic baby shared so many physical and personality characteristics with Lindsay Lohan, that the public automatically ASSUMED that the commercial was about her, and not any of the millions of other LINDSAYS on the planet.
(Remember what I said about Lindsay having to prove she is a slutty alcoholic bimbo to win this case? This was what I meant.);
(3) BECAUSE the viewing public immediately recognized LINDSAY LOHAN in the advertisement on Super Bowl Sunday, they quickly dropped their beers and hot wings, jumped on the internet, and instantly began spending 100 Million Dollars on E-Trade (since the name “Lindsay Lohan” is obviously synonymous with moral and fiscal responsibility).
I’m quite certain the E-Trade babies are pooping in their pants right now . . .
not because they are scared of the lawsuit, or anything. They’ve just all really gotta go . . .
All of you law students out there might want to keep an eye on this one. Dumb is at might seem, I’d be willing to bet you 100 Million Dollars (which I totally don’t have, by the way), that some variation of this case will make a cameo appearance on your Torts or Media Law exam this semester.