Is Lindsay Lohan Really the One Behind Her E-Trade Lawsuit?

I ranted yesterday about how Lindsay Lohan filed a frivolous lawsuit against E-Trade claiming that the “milk-a-holic” named Lindsay in their Super Bowl commercial was based on her.

Since news of the lawsuit broke, Lindsay herself has had no comment. (And she also doesn’t have a publicist anymore.) The closest thing Lindsay’s come to making a public statement since yesterday is musing on her Twitter about the symptoms of swine flu. She’s in Paris enjoying Fashion Week, drunk (on milk, ‘natch).

So then who’s filing the lawsuit? Gawker makes the compelling case that her father and possibly mother are the ones filing the suit:

But the strange thing about the suit is that the lead attorney on the case, Stephanie Ovadia, has done legal work for Michael Lohan in the past, and Michael has repeatedly posted fulsome praise of Ovadia’s legal skills to his Twitter feed as recently as January. Last we checked, Michael was still in the midst of his famous feud with Lindsay—just last week, father and daughter were lobbing tabloid insults at one another, with Lindsay saying she didn’t speak to Michael and calling him “nuts.” So why would she seek out her dad’s lawyer just a few days later to file a $100 million lawsuit?

And her mother, Dina Lohan, gave this interview to the NY Post today:

The “Mean Girls” star was left sobbing uncontrollably when she saw an E-Trade ad on Super Bowl Sunday about a ditsy, boyfriend-stealing infant named Lindsay she believed was created in her likeness, her irate mom told The Post yesterday.

“She said, ‘Mommy, help me. This is wrong. How can they do this?’ ” Dina Lohan said of a tearful phone call with her 23-year-old daughter after the big game. …

“I’m just basically glad I took a stand. I’m not going to let them do this to us anymore,” Dina Lohan said of the “horrible” and “mean” ad.

MEANWHILE, Esquire has the original script of the ad, where the “milk-a-holic,” originally referred to as a “skank,” was named Deborah.

In September, her name was changed to Lindsay, and she was a “bimbus.”

Apparently it was a last-minute decision by E-Trade to go with the less-aggressive “milk-a-holic.”

E-Trade rejected Grey’s preferred nickname — “flank-steak woman” — just three days after the name Lindsay appeared, opting instead for the tamer “milk-a-holic.” Three months later, in the lead-up to the Super Bowl, [Grey's chief creative officer, Tor] Myhren actually still had concerns that E-Trade was being too tame in limiting his punch line. “We’re locked in,” he told me on January 8, “on everything except the very, very last word. It was something really aggressive but I thought hilarious. The girlfriend pops her head in and says, ‘Say it to my milk-a-holic face!’ I think it would have become a catchphrase, but E-Trade felt it was too aggressive. Provisionally, we have her saying ‘Milk-a-what?’ which doesn’t quite have the edge. I think it falls flat, but I hope I’m wrong.”

FASCINATING STUFF, but it all points to the frivolity of this lawsuit and the very real likelihood that Lindsay’s crazy-ass, money-grubbing parents are behind this, because their own paychecks have dried up now that their cash cow daughter can’t stay sober long enough to make any real money.

Oh, and a behind-the-scenes look at the E-Trade campaign is above. SO CUTE. Also: How much is all this publicity worth to E-Trade? Probably not $100M, but my guess is they’re enjoying this quite a bit.

Read more at:
Is Lindsay Lohan Really the One Behind Her E-Trade Lawsuit?
Syndicated from: