Frivol

Frivol (pronounced friv-uhl)

(1) An unserious person.

(2) An idle diversion or pastime; a frivolity.

(3) To behave frivolously; to trifle; to squander time; to waste on frivolous pursuits (historically followed by away).

(4) To spend money frivolously (historically followed by away).

1865–1870: A back formation from frivolous, from the French frivole, from the Latin frīvolus (trifling, worthless).  The word exists in Romanian where it’s used in the same sense as in English but in German there’s been a meaning shift and it’s now an adjective meaning saucy; sleazy; ribald (sexual in a frivolous way), the comparative being frivoler and the superlative am frivolsten (in the matter of frivolous sex, the Germans have grades).  The adjective frivolous emerged in the mid-fifteenth century, from the Latin frivolus (silly, empty, trifling, worthless), a diminutive of frivos (broken, crumbled), from friare (break, rub away, crumble).  In courts of law, frivolous was in use by the mid- 1730s to describe arguments (or entire cases) as “so clearly insufficient as to need no argument to show its weakness”.  The related forms were the adverb frivolously and the nouns frivolousness & frivolity.  Dating from the 1790s, frivolity was from the French frivolité, from the Old French frivole (frivolous), from the Latin frivolus.  Frivol is a noun & verb, frivoler (also frivoller) is a noun, frivoled (also frivolled) & frivoling (also frivolled) are verbs; the noun plural is frivols.  Frivol is all contexts is now rare (some sources suggest it is extinct) which is interesting because in English there’s usually a tendency for a short form to prevail over the long; for whatever reason frivolous & frivolity flourished and frivol floundered.

Of the frivolous and the vexatious

In legal proceedings, “frivolous” & “vexatious” are terms used to describe certain classes of argument or even an entire case.  An action or claim is labeled frivolous when it self-evidently lacks any merit or basis in law and has no reasonable prospect of success.  An action or a litigant is labeled as vexatious when they engage in persistent, repetitive, or burdensome litigation, often with the primary goal of annoying, harassing, or frustrating the opposing party.  Like the frivolous, a vexatious action is often one with little prospect of success but is characterized by a pattern of behavior rather than the lack of merit in a specific claim and the phrase “abuse of process” is often used in conjunction with “vexatious”.  If a litigant is found repeatedly to commence such actions, courts sometimes declare them a “vexatious litigant” and intervene to prevent them filing new suits without the permission of the court.  The terms “serial litigant” is also sometime used in this context but the courts will not move against a party simply on the basis of the frequency with which actions are brought; provided a actions are on sound legal grounds and have a reasonable prospect of success, as a general principle, there is no limit on their number.

Courts do act more harshly against the vexatious than the frivolous because the former (often involving the legal system in repetitive and burdensome litigation) are being used as a weapon, sometimes as devices to harass or annoy and sometimes as a way of attempting to cause the other party to have to spend so much in legal fees that they will discontinue the case.  Each matter is dealt with on its merits but courts can impose sanctions on both litigants and counsel; it’s not unusual for litigants declared vexatious to be self-represented because no lawyer will agree to run the action.  Although there can be nuances, a case is frivolous if it has no reasonable chance of succeeding, and is vexatious if the court finds it would be unreasonable to ask the other party to defend the matter.  Lindsay Lohan went through a “serial litigant” phase and the makers of GTA were not the only plaintiffs to suggest she was running frivolous cases, the accusation usually that the legal proceedings were being commenced only to seek publicity:

Lindsay Lohan v Take-Two Interactive Software Inc et al, New York Court of Appeals (No 24, pp1-11, 29 March 2018)

In a case which took an unremarkable four years from filing to reach New York’s highest appellate court, Lindsay Lohan’s suit against the makers of video game Grand Theft Auto V was dismissed.  In a unanimous ruling in March 2018, six judges of the New York Court of Appeals rejected her invasion of privacy claim which alleged one of the game’s characters was based on her.  The judges found the "actress/singer" in the game merely resembled a “generic young woman” rather than anyone specific.  Unfortunately the judges seemed unacquainted with the concept of the “basic white girl” which might have made the judgment more of a fun read.

Beware of imitations: The real Lindsay Lohan and the GTA 5 ersatz, a mere "generic young woman".

Agreeing with the 2016 ruling of the New York County Supreme Court which, on appeal, also found for the game’s makers, the judges, as a point of law, accepted the claim a computer game’s character "could be construed a portrait", which "could constitute an invasion of an individual’s privacy" but, on the facts of the case, the likeness was "not sufficiently strong".  The “… artistic renderings are an indistinct, satirical representation of the style, look and persona of a modern, beach-going young woman... that is not recognizable as the plaintiff" Judge Eugene Fahey wrote in his ruling.  Lindsay Lohan’s lawyers did not seek leave to appeal.

Lindsay Lohan v E-Trade Securities LLC, New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County, No. 004579/2010

In 2010, one of Lindsay Lohan’s more unusual forays into litigation was settled prior to reaching trial.  In the Supreme Court of New York, Ms Lohan had filed suit for US$100 million against online investment site E-Trade, in connection with their Super Bowl ad featuring a "milkaholic" baby girl named Lindsay.  The claim was based on the allegation the commercial was mocking her on the basis of some drug and alcohol related matters which had involved the police, saying the work additionally improperly invoked her “likeness, name, characterization, and personality” without permission, violating her right of privacy.  In the statement of claim, the actress sought US$50 million in compensatory damages and US$50 million in exemplary damages as well as demanding E-Trade cease and desist running the commercial and turn over all copies to her.  One interesting technical legal point raised was that Ms Lohan enjoyed the same “single-name” recognition as celebrities such as talk-show host Oprah (Winfrey) or the singer Madonna (Ciccone).

The E-Trade commercial had been broadcast during the Super Bowl on 7 February 2010 as part of a series built around the theme “babies who play the markets”, and attracted an audience of around 106 ½ million viewers in the US market, then a record number.  E-Trade filed a statement of defense in which it said the claims were “without merit”, and that Lindsay Lohan wasn’t the world's only Lindsay, noting Lindsay was in 2008 the 380th most popular name for new-born American girls, down somewhat from 241th in 2004 when Mean Girls was released.  Grey Group, the advertising agency which produced the commercial later added the “milkaholic Lindsay” was named after a member of its account team although this apparently wasn’t added to the statement of defense.  The plaintiffs did raise the matter of dismissal as frivolous but the judge said the matters raised were "potentially legally substantive" and allowed the case to proceed.  After some months, a settlement was reached between the parties, both sides bound by a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).

Pitbull (Armando Christian Pérez, b 1981).

Another of Lindsay Lohan's forays into litigation did however give a judge the opportunity to discuss the parameters a court works with when deciding whether an argument can be ruled "frivolous".  In 2011 she sued hip hop artist Pitbull over the lyrics in his song Give Me Everything, which included the line: So, I’m toptoein’, to keep flowin’, I got it locked up, like Lindsay Lohan.  Ms Lohan cited the lyric as a violation of her publicity and publicity rights which caused her emotional distress, claiming the lyrics “includes an unwarranted, unauthorized, and unfavorable mention of [her] name and personality, and allusions to her physical and mental character.”  The judge dismissed on technical grounds the claim made under New York Civil Rights law, adding that the First Amendment anyway affords full protection.  What was more interesting was the discussion of the argument the song was commercial rather than expressive in nature, the judge ruling that even if the work was created for the purpose of “making a profit”, that does not mean her name was “used for advertising or purposes of trade within the meaning of the New York law“ and that, on the facts of this case, even if that were proved, the “isolated nature of the use of her name” (just one line in the song) would “prove fatal” to the claims.  Putbull’s counsel indicated they wished to have the court sanction Ms Lohan for filing a frivolous lawsuit (an abuse of process) but the judge, noting the paucity of case law in this field, said the lack of precedent meant there was no clear indication the case would be doomed and the claim was therefore not so frivolous as to warrant the imposition of a sanction.  Lindsay Lohan thus remained free to litigate, which she did.