How an Oakville toddler caused Lindsay Lohan’s latest scandal

How an Oakville toddler caused Lindsay Lohan’s latest scandal

To avoid litigation, we will make this post as clear as possible: Lindsay Lohan, an “actress,” “model” and “designer,” has been upset by what McAllister Kerr, an Oakville toddler, appears to have said in a television commercial (at left) for a large American financial services company. Mr. Kerr, it should be noted, did not utter anything slanderous about Ms. Lohan. However, through special visual effects, Mr. Kerr’s likeness is seen in a conversation that allegedly identifies a Lindsay as a “milkaholic,” presumably implying that said Lindsay frequently imbibes a substance called “milkahol.” As a result of the emotional strain inflicted on Ms. Lohan by the milkaholic allegations, she has exercised her constitutional right and launched a $100-million lawsuit against E-Trade, the maker of the television advertisement, which starred Mr. Kerr.

We’re afraid the legal rigmarole is necessary. Lohan is very sensitive about the way in which her name is used. And rightfully so, considering Lindsay Lohan is approximately the only celebrity named Lindsay.

“Our contention is that though Lindsay is a popular girl’s name, when you say it on television for advertising purposes, it’s identifiable as Lindsay Lohan,” the actress’ lawyer, Stephanie Ovadia, told Esquire. “You’ve got to look at the totality of the commercial to understand why we believe they are referring to Lindsay Lohan.”

The name is uttered when the baby says that he couldn’t possibly have been with Lindsay, since he was managing his portfolio on E-Trade all night. We’re confused: does this mean Lohan dates babies who are otherwise romantically involved, or babies who manage their finances over the Internet, or does this mean she is both an alcoholic and a narcissist? We just hope the stress of the lawsuit doesn’t drive Mr. Kerr to hit the bottle.

Why Lindsay Lohan’s at war with an Oakville toddler [Toronto Star]
Is Lindsay Lohan’s $100M E-Trade lawsuit bogus? [Esquire]