You know, I kind of figured it wouldn't take long before whatever riches that Lindsay Lohan had amassed would have dwindled down to next to nothing. I just didn't know when it would be. But I'm guessing that the time is now as, according to Fox News she has filed suit against e-Trade "...insisting that a boyfriend-stealing, "milkaholic" baby used in its latest commercial is modeled after her." Um, what now?
If you watched the Super Bowl, you likely saw this commercial. And look, I realize that babies grow up and aren't babies anymore (although, in the case of a lot of people that I know personally, they seem to grow up and just become bigger babies), but the babies that the e-Trade folks are using for this round of commercials just aren't as cute as the guys that they had in the first set. It also appears as if they were going for babies that had the same sort of look as the first babies did. Maybe that's why I'm not a fan. They can't duplicate that, so they shouldn't have even tried and just should have gone with a new, completely different looking baby. But I digress. Where was I? Oh, right. The Super Bowl.
During the Super Bowl, the commercial below aired. Basically, you've got boy baby apologizing to the girl baby for not getting back to her the previous night. She's still suspicious of his being all on e-Trade or whatever and asks him "And that milkaholic Lindsay wasn't over?" The boy baby repeats rather nervously (or as nervous as a baby can seem), "Lindsay?" And that's when another baby girl pokes her head in from the side of the screen and asks (in a barely articulate voice), "Milk-a-what?" It's funny, but since the babies aren't as articulate as you need them to be in order to get out words like "milkaholic" and "Lindsay", a little bit of the funny gets lost in translation.
But back to crazy, crazy Lindsay Lohan. According to her lawyer, who I am going to simply assume, based on this lawsuit, is a reprehensible human being, a one Stephanie Ovadia, has said that Lindsay Lohan has basically the same name recognition as does The Oprah or The Madonna. "Many celebrities are known by one name only, and E-Trade is using that knowledge to profit." said the lawyer who is obviously delusional and hoping to profit off of this. The lawyer continues on and further solidifies the assumption of delusional when she says, "They're using her name as a parody of her life. Why didn't they use the name Susan? This is a subliminal message. Everybody's talking about it and saying it's Lindsay Lohan." OK, then. Now, just because you say that, doesn't make it true. I don't think that there is anyone out there who equates the name recognition of Lindsay Lohan with that of The Oprah. No one.
I have a question. Everybody who? I watched the Super Bowl with several people and not one of us said, "Oh, my God! They're talking about Lindsay Lohan! They think Lindsay Lohan is a milkaholic that steals other babies boyfriends!" Yeah, that didn't happen. And I'm pretty confident in stating that I don't think that it happened anywhere. That's because if you say "Lindsay", people don't think "Lohan". I will guarantee you that anyone over the age of 40 will say "Wagner" or "The Bionic Woman" if they hear "Lindsay". They're not thinking "Lohan". Now, if someone said "Samantha Ronson", the thing that people probably think of the most (after "DJ" and after "odd little lesbian chick") is "Lindsay Lohan". But that's not what's being argued here, so I'm still failing to see their point.
The ridiculous lawsuit says that Lindsay (the Lohan, not the fictional baby that no one associates with her) "...is owed $50 million in exemplary damages, plus another $50 million in compensatory damages." Now, I don't know how she's going to prove exemplary damages for any of this and I certainly don't know how she would prove exemplary damages for the sum of $50 million. $150 maybe, but that's just $150, not $150 million!
But in order to prove compensatory damages, according to The Free Legal Dictionary (take it for what it's worth, which is free) "...the plaintiff must prove that he or she has suffered a legally recognizable harm that is compensable by a certain amount of money that can be objectively determined by a judge or jury." Back in 2004, she was worth about $7 million per movie. I cannot imagine that she commandeers that price these days. I mean, here's Lindsay in 2004:
And here's Lindsay on New Year's Eve 2009:
Um, yeah. OK, so my point is that the $50 million that they want in compensatory damages is not happening. My other point is that the $50 million that they want in exemplary damages is not happening. And my final point is that this is a sad, sad statement of where Lindsay Lohan is at, not just in her career, but in her life.
The other things that Lohan and her gravy train riding peeps are seeking are "...an injunction to force the spot off the air, and...every last copy of the commercial. " Every last copy of the commercial? Oh, well, with the Internet and all, that should be totally doable. Uh-huh. Yeah, if that were to go through, she wouldn't have to worry about that ever popping up anywhere ever again. Yeah, that would be all taken care of. Uh-huh. Yeah. OK. I'm sure they're on that right now. You know. Just in case.
Man, if you didn't think that she was delusional before I got to that part of the story, you kind of have to be wondering just a little bit about it now, don't you? I think you do. Good luck, Lindsay, but not with this lawsuit. Good luck getting your life back on a productive track when you are clearly surrounded by people who do not have your best interest at heart and who are only looking to make a buck off of you. Good luck with that. You're going to need it.Sphere: Related Content