Tags: E*Trade, Lawsuits, Lindsay Lohan, milkaholics, whore babies
Back in March, Lindsay Lohan filed a suit against E*Trade, claiming that the baby in the brokerage’s latest commercial was based on her life. Lohan came to this conclusion because the character’s name is Lindsay, she’s referred to as a “milk-a-holic,” and there’s a suggestion that the young one is a man-stealing tramp (she also claimed that though the name “Lohan” is never mentioned, she’s attained first name recognition. Plus, the stuff about the baby being a strung out slut). For the grave offense, Lohan demanded the spots pulled, and $100 million for the emotional distress they caused her.
At the time, E*Trade said the bitch be crazy, and claimed that they used the name Lindsay because it’s “a popular baby name” and not because they were trying to insinuate that Lohan is some sort of strung out whore (baby). They also shot back that Lindsay does not have “one name” recognition like “Madonna” or “RuPaul” or “Lloyd,” and that the commercial could have been about any one of the 250,000 people named Lindsay in the U.S.
Lohan’s lawyers responded that the issue isn’t “how many people in the USA are with the name ‘Lindsay’,” the issue was “how many celebrities are with this name ‘Lindsay’ in the USA, and then in the context, manner, characterization, persona.” For instance, when you take the name “Tiger” and put it in the context of golf or proclivity skanky ass bitches, it’s obvious you’re talking about Tiger Woods. To that end, it’s apparently patently obvious that when you have the name “Lindsay” in the context of an alcoholic “bimbus” (the lawyer’s words), we’re talking about Lindsay Lohan.
And apparently…that logic may have worked! Allegedly, a settlement between Lindsay and E*Trade has been reached and ole one name is said to be “very happy with the results.”