Sadly, we will never know why the 'milkaholic' E-Trade baby was named Lindsay

By Eriq Gardner

Lindsay Lohan hasn't had much good news lately, with a judge issuing a bench warrant today for her arrest after violating terms of her probation. But the actress has shut the book on one legal matter.

Lohan has settled her $100 million claim against E-Trade over the Super Bowl commercial that featured a "milkaholic" baby named Lindsay. TMZ says Lohan will actually get some cash out of the deal but the website cites anonymous "sources" and then refers to Lohan's lawyer Stephanie Ovadia -- whom we had never heard of before this case -- as a "high-powered attorney," so you can guess who supplied that info.

Regardless, a big payout would be a surprise to many (including us) who ridiculed the claim (and Ovadia's subsequent argument) when it was first filed in March.

BBC trying to muzzle the big 'Top Gear' secret

By Eriq Gardner

The BBC is attempting to stop HarperCollins from publishing a book that will unmask the identity of the costumed stunt driver in the successful series "Top Gear."

"Top Gear" is the biggest BBC hit and an international sensation that features a stunt driver known as The Stig alongside famous guests. For years, many have speculated on the identity of The Stig, with British newspapers guessing it might be former Formula Three driver Ben Collins.

A new autobiography by The Stig himself will settle this once and for all -- but not if the BBC has its way.

5 possible reasons why Lindsay Lohan filed that talking-baby lawsuit

By Eriq Gardner

Lindsay Lohan's $100 million lawsuit against E-Trade for airing a commercial that featured a "milkaholic" baby named Lindsay has the town talking (video below).

Here's the actual complaint. 

We'd love to give a counterintuitive post that argues why this lawsuit stands a chance in hell -- but that seems fairly impossible. It's an obvious loser, leading to natural speculation about what prompted the actress to file it.

Possible Explanation 1: Lohan's representatives really think she can win the case. To do so, her lawyer will need to show that E-Trade knowingly traded on her good name and implied a commercial endorsement where there was none. Perhaps something could turn up in the discovery process implicating the ad agency that created the spot, but there may be enough outs for E-Trade even if it's revealed the online brokerage website had Ms. Lohan in mind. 

Lindsay Lohan sprayed with litigation

By Eriq Gardner

Lindsay Lohan has a knack for getting into trouble. Her bouts with authorities have even inspired advertisements debating whether states should adopt mandatory breathalyzer laws.

Nevertheless, Lohan manages to find herself in very interesting legal predicaments. The latest lawsuit to target the actress involves a Florida skin care company who claims she stole the formula for a sunless tanning spray. White Wave International alleges that Lohan and her business partner, Lorit Simon, engaged in negotiations over the tan spray but couldn't agree upon a price.

"The next thing we know, Lorit Simon and Lindsay Lohan are partnering and Ms. Lohan is taking credit for developing this formula, which she indeed had no role in," Marcia Cohen, attorney for the plaintiff, told the St. Petersburg Times.

Here's the complaint filed in Florida district court.

Although Lohan's latest legal troubles may sound unprecedented, we will note that the cosmetic business has long bedeviled Hollywood actresses. A few examples include Teri Hatcher's legal battles over a skin care product, Heidi Klum's troubles with a company selling her fragrance, Nicole Kidman's war to protect her perfume endorsement deal, Jennifer Lopez' smelly lawsuit, and allegations that Jessica Simpson pirated a cosmetics brand. 

'Watchmen' Watch: Tallying the opening weekend grosses/damages

By Eriq Gardner 

The reviews weren't great. The opening weekend boxoffice numbers were mediocre. But what about the litigation returns on "Watchmen"?

We'll still have to wait and see.

Over the weekend, the film we've been writing about and writing about and writing about and writing about pulled in $55.7 million domestically for Warner Bros. But Fox gets a piece of that revenue (as much as 8.5% if the film is a megahit) as part of the settlement of the  litigation between the studios over who had the right to distribute the picture.

Judging by a NYU's professor's regression model on how opening weekend box office numbers predict total movie grosses, and adjusting downward due to expected higher-than-normal opening weekend geek fandom, we'd expect this film to eventually gross about, or just above, $130 million domestically when all is said and done (Paramount holds overseas rights). Funny enough, that happens to be the same figure as the reported budget of the film.

Surely that won't be enough to trigger the full 8.5% payout, will it? Minimal profits means a limited payout,right?

Then there's Larry Gordon. A couple weeks ago, we wrote about the veteran producer's strange position watching box office returns on "Watchmen":

"The better the film does, the more he could pocket as a profit participant but the more he might have to fork over to make Warners whole. That’s because Warners claims its agreements with Gordon contain an indemnity clause requiring the producer to reimburse it for unforeseen problems with the picture."

Funny enough, at the rate this film is going, Gordon may be lucky enough, or unlucky enough — depending on how one wants to see this — as not being caught up in any further litigation. But given this film's litigious history, the prospect of strife-free resolution seems unlikely.

Meanwhile, in other "Watchmen" related legal news, Warner Bros. is demanding on copyright grounds that websites pull down streams of the film's innovative title sequence. Obviously, those title sequences are still floating out there, but the studio's take-down notices have elicited comments like this one: "I will never understand Hollywood’s approach to free publicity."

LA Police Chief Better Watch His Step In Hollywood

By Eriq Gardner

Note to celebrities living in Los Angeles: Your police commissioner doesn't like you very much.

That may seem like a strong statement, but it's the only conclusion we can reach after reading this quote from LA Police Chief William Bratton, who doesn't think new laws requiring buffer zones around paparazzi is a good idea:

"If celebrities behave themselves, that solves about 90 percent of the problem," Bratton said. "Britney, the last couple of days, has started wearing clothes again. The paparazzi are leaving town because she's not as interesting when she's not running around without her underwear on."

Poor Britney and Paris.

Between being spotlighted in negative political advertisements and subjected to US Weekly-like scrutiny from Bratton, it hasn't been a good week for the new (or old?) brat pack. Bratton says actress Lindsay Lohan "evidently found a new love life, so she's probably in New York hanging out" and that "God knows" where billionaire heiress Paris Hilton had been. "She's thankfully disappeared from the scene," Bratton said.

Ok, ok, we get it. Celebrities are to blame for paparazzi and no new laws are required.

Lindsey Lohan Covers Herself In Furry Legal Trouble

Posted by Eriq Gardner

Hardly a week goes by without some legal news on the Lindsay Lohan front. The actress-slash-gift-to-billable-hours is now being sued by a Columbia University student in Manhattan Supreme Court for stealing a fur coat "without claim of authority, privilege or right."

Maria "Masha" Markova is a 22-year-old model who received the $11,000 coat from her grandmother as a gift. After attending a party at Manhattan hotspot 1Oak, which Lohan also allegedly attended, the fur coat went missing. Markova then spotted her prized possession in magazine photos everywhere on the shoulders of Lohan.

She is seeking $10,000 for Lohan's "rental."

Will Lindsay Lohan Protect Celebrities Everywhere?

Posted by Eriq Gardner

The Above the Law blog runs an interesting guest column today by Marc Edelman about a potential lawsuit from Lindsay Lohan that could help clarify whether state laws guarding publicity rights protect celebrities from having their name and image abused in political-oriented advertisements.

The American Beverage Institute recently ran an advertisement in USA Today opposing the mandatory use of breathalyzers. Here's an image of the ad:

ABI Managing Director Sarah Longwell told MTV.com that she believes Lohan’s mug shot is fair game because it is already in the public domain. Lohan's lawyer was furious.

Meanwhile, the ABA said it planned to use the mug shots of other celebrities arrested for drunken driving in further campaigns.

Edelman doesn't think that Lohan has a claim under the Lanham Act, which among other features, prohibits advertising that creates confusion of an endorsement Instead, Edelman believes a case would be fought on state laws that prevent unauthorized use of one’s image for commercial gain. Well, duh.

California and many other states have aggressive right of publicity statutes to guard against unauthorized uses of celebrity likenesses. But because ABA is a trade organization, it may argue its ad is political speech, not commercial. The case involves enough grey area that Edelman writes, "Attorneys for both athletes and entertainers will be following these developments closely."

Just Her Luck! Busboy's Driving Case Against Lindsay Lohan Dwindles

Posted by Matthew Heller

A busboy's reckless driving suit against Lindsay Lohan could be settled before the troubled star even has to give a deposition, according to the plaintiff's attorney.

In November, Lohan suffered a setback when a Los Angeles judge ruled that Raymundo Ortega could videotape her deposition as part of his suit alleging she drove her Mercedes-Benz into his van while intoxicated after drinking with friends at a Hollywood hangout. But Superior Court Judge Michael L. Stern reversed himself after an appeals court ordered him to explain why the videotaping was necessary. And now Ortega attorney Robert G. Klein of Los Angeles tell us that "We're trying to get the case settled."

Klein explained over the phone that the potential damages from the case have significantly declined since two employees of the Ivy submitted affidavits in December stating that they did not see Lohan drink an Ivy Gimlet or any other alcoholic beverage before her collision with Ortega. "The evidence we have is not sufficient to prove" she was intoxicated, he said.

Without a claim for punitive damages, Klein said, Ortega has only a "run-of the mill" auto accident case worth a maximum of about $25,000.