## Facts

- Lindsay Lohan sued recording artists and music entities over a lyric in the commercially released song “Give Me Everything”: “I got it locked up like Lindsay Lohan.”
- She alleged the lyric used her name, persona, and alleged notoriety without consent to generate commercial benefits.
- She asserted claims under New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 and common-law unjust enrichment and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- She claimed the reference was negative, harmed her reputation, and caused emotional distress, and she sought damages and injunctive relief.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and later sought sanctions against Lohan and her counsel, citing frivolous claims and plagiarism in briefing.

## Issues

1. Whether a single use of Lohan’s name in song lyrics is use “for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade” under N.Y. Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51.
2. Whether the First Amendment protects the lyric as part of an expressive work, barring liability under §§ 50–51.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly stated claims for unjust enrichment and IIED under New York law.
4. Whether sanctions were warranted for frivolous litigation and plagiarism in counsel’s submissions.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed all claims.
- The court held the lyric was part of a protected expressive work and did not constitute statutory “advertising” or “trade” use under §§ 50–51.
- The court concluded First Amendment protection for artistic expression foreclosed the statutory claim on these facts.
- The court dismissed unjust enrichment as unavailable where it would duplicate or circumvent the narrow statutory scheme and where the underlying use was not unlawful.
- The court dismissed IIED because the alleged conduct did not approach New York’s “extreme and outrageous” threshold and functionally duplicated other theories.
- The court granted the sanctions motion in part based on plagiarism in plaintiff’s opposition brief, but declined broader sanctions and full fee shifting.

## Legal Principles

- New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 is construed narrowly and targets nonconsensual commercial appropriations (e.g., advertisements and merchandising), not general references in expressive works sold for profit.
- Artistic works, including popular music, receive full First Amendment protection; an incidental or fleeting mention of a person’s name within the expressive content is not converted into “advertising” or “trade” use by commercial distribution.
- Unjust enrichment generally cannot be used to obtain relief for an alleged misappropriation of name or likeness where the statutory scheme governs the field and the challenged use is not actionable under that scheme.
- IIED requires conduct that is extreme and outrageous beyond all bounds of decency; insulting or unflattering references in entertainment, without targeted harassment, are insufficient as a matter of law.
- Courts may impose sanctions for litigation misconduct such as plagiarism even where the claims themselves are dismissed without a finding that the entire action was sanctionably frivolous.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Lohan’s statutory and tort claims because a single lyric referencing her name in a commercially distributed song was protected artistic expression and not actionable “advertising or trade” use under New York law, and it imposed limited sanctions based on plagiarism in counsel’s briefing.


Lohan v. Perez, 924 F. Supp. 2d 447 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)