You’re So Vain, You Probably Think This E-Trade Baby is About You . . .

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.);

and

(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.

Luck Be an E-Trade Baby Tonight . . .

 

Back when I was in high school, my history teacher decided to conduct a little experiment with us.  We were studying the Stock Market Crash of 1929.  So, my teacher thought it would be fun to see how capable his 16-year old students were of handling a stock portfolio.  (Now that I think about it, he was probably just looking for free stock tips . . . )

We broke into teams of three, and were each given $100,000 (fake, of course).  Each team was then asked to “invest” the money in the stock market as we saw fit, using real time data about the stocks taken from various news outlets.  Now, my teammates and I knew precisely nada about the stockmarket.  And we figured that the assignment wasn’t going to be graded or anything.  So we just had fun with it — purchasing “stock” in companies that sold stuff we liked or products we used, like Coca Cola, Gap, Google, Apple, Mars Candy etc.

The “game” went on for a month, with students having the opportunity to “trade” lousy stocks for better ones at the end of each week.  At the end of the month, dollar amounts were tallied and teams were ranked.  I am proud to report that Buddah Investments (Yeah, that was actually the name we chose for our team.  Apparently, the creativity of a my teenage self knew no bounds.   Oh, and one of my teammates was kind of a pothead.) won FIRST PLACE, beating the tushies off those snooty investment bankers’ kids whose portfolios floundered almost universally near the bottom of the pile.

No wonder our economy is in the crapper . . .

When we came to collect our winnings (which, unfortunately, did not include the actual value of our fake portfolios, but, rather $5 gift cards to Barnes and Noble), our teacher, always a veritable ray of sunshine, said, “Don’t get too cocky.  When conducting this same experiment, a chimp, who threw darts at the business section of a newspaper to choose stocks, performed way better than you did (and, apparently, better than most stock market experts too).

At this time, we are pleased to introduce you to the next CFO of AIG . . .

So, why am I telling you all this?  Because the notion that stock market trading is less a matter of analytical skill, and more a matter of luck and chance, has become the basis for what are, in my opinion, some of the cleverest (not to mention most adorable) commercials on television today.  Of course, I’m talking about those awesome E-Trade Baby commercials that typically invade our television screens around Superbowl time each year.

In essence, these commercials have taken the basic premise of those old Geico commercials, which stated that becoming insured was “so easy, a caveman caveman could do it” . . .

 . . . and applied it to the stockmarket.

Trading is so easy, a baby could do it . . .

I also enjoy the E-Trade commercials, because they remind me of one of my favorite movies from back when I was just an itty bitty kiddie myself:

So, without further adieu, I give to you, an E-Trade Baby Commercial Montage I found on YouTube:

But if stocks aren’t your thing, fear not.  There is also this adorable video of the E-Trade Babies performing a tribute to Snoop Doggy Dog’s classic rap anthem, Gin and Juice.  Viewer discretion is advised . . .