As we mentioned yesterday, Lindsay LohanLydia Hearst is set to star in an upcoming movie Dogs in Pocketbooks, which is quite obviously based on LiLo's life.
Hearst is set to play "a bratty movie goddess in and out of rehab, in trouble with the law, and hounded by greedy agents, predatory paparazzi, off-the-wall stalkers and crazed media."
As a result, Team LiLo is considering pursuing legal action against the film's producers.
Here's what Dina Lohan had to say about the potential lawsuit:
"[The new movie] is definitely based on Lindsay's likeness. We have a very strong case. It's shadowing E*TRADE" — referring to Lohan's suit against the online brokerage firm which produced a commercial featuring a baby Lindsay."
Lohan family lawyer, Stephanie Ovadia, continued:
"They are again using her likeness without her being compensated. Not only that but they are advertising the fact that they are using her likeness."
Looks like they've got a case here. Guess we'll see if the producers' pocketbooks are big enough to keep Dogs in Pocketbooks moving forward.
In the case of Lindsay Lohan Vs Defaming "Milkaholic" Baby, LOLhan won the day!
Though the terms of the settlement are being kept confidential, sources are reporting that the Lindsanity's lawsuit against E*Trade came to an end today. She had originally gone after the stock exchange company for $100 million, after they aired a commercial liking her addiction to meth alcohol to that of baby's love for milk. (Or some bullshiz like that!)
Anyway, apparently there was a smaller amount that sufficed the tweaked out starlet as sources say that Lindsay's legal team is "very happy" with the results and Linds was able to walk away with some big bucks.
Hope there's enough to buy you miracle! You need it now more than ever!
Okay, so technically she’s suing the company E*trade, but it’s still pretty crazy.
We’ll refer to her by her entire name, Lindsay Lohan, as we tell you this story, because apparently you can run into ALL TYPES of problems if you just use her first name.
Lindsay Lohan is suing E-trade because their commercial featured a “milkaholic” baby named Lindsay, which she felt was clearly a reference to her, and apparently her lawyer feels the same way.
E*trade argues that there are 250,000 women named Lindsay in the United States, and that Lindsay Lohan doesn’t have a trademark on her name, like Oprah, Cher, Madonna, or Beyonce.
Here’s what Lindsay Lohan’s lawyer, Stephanie Ovadia, has to say against E-trade’s argument. Get comfortable…this is a hefty read:
"As they say, 'What's in the name?' It is in the totality of circumstances that a particular name or person acquires popularity or notoriety. It is in (sic) totality of circumstances that a name or person becomes a distinguished name. Some names such as Bill, Hillary, Bush, Tiger, Paris, Johnny, Allen, are very common names. There may be millions, if not billions, of people with these names in the world. Some words may not necessarily be just the names for human beings but may convey other meanings also. For example, 'Tiger' is an animal and is associated with a jungle or zoo in a particular context. However, when used in the context of [the] Golf game world, it conveys (sic) totally different message."
And more babble from Lindsay Lohan’s lawyer:
"The issue, in (sic) case at bar, is not how many people in the USA are with the name 'Lindsay' or 'Lindsey'. The issue is how many celebrities are with this name 'Lindsay' in the USA, and then (sic) in the context, manner, characterization, persona…If Defendants take this name, 'Lindsay' in context of a celebrity name (sic) then by Defendants' own admission, there are only a few limited celebrities with this name around, and this number may not be more than four or five.'
Don’t worry about it if you skimmed this. We’re thinking the Court will probably do the same thing.
Lindsay Lohan is suing Internet financial company E-Trade for using her first name in a commercial for a "milkaholic" baby! The commercial aired during the Super Bowl and her lawyer argues:
"Many celebrities are known by one name only, and E-Trade is using that knowledge to profit. They used the name Lindsay. 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."
A spokesman for Grey Group, who produced the ad, says that they "just used a popular baby name that happened to be the name of someone on the account team."
La Loca wants $100 million for her "pain and suffering."
Oh please, you know she just drowned her sorrows in some "milk!"
The drama all started when popular beauty blogger Shannon Harris posted a side by side of her eyeshadow kit next to Jenner's. Harris simply captioned the shot with a sassy "drinking tea" emoji to imply some MAJOR shade.
If you look closely at the two kits (above)!, it's hard to deny the similar packaging and colors of the products. The only differences between the two are in price and the amount of product.
While K.J.'s palette is a whopping $42 bucks, the makeup guru's is $22 dollars. Not to mention Shannon's eyeshadow palette also includes pans of lip product on the back.
Hmm... so essentially the gorgeous gal's palette is a better deal? You don't say!
Following the shady tweet, fans flooded social media with their own opinions on the scandal, most of which were heavily in Shannon's favor: