The movie, which was released in 2008 and starred Matthew Broderick and Brittany Snow, loosely chronicles Tolan's trip to Las Vegas to take part in an intervention to help convince his niece, who had become a prostitute, to go to rehab.
Daily alleges that Tolan -- who also directed -- did little to hide the fact that it was based on her life. Court documents claim that "much of the dialogue, facts, and events really happened," and the character of Amanda "looked, dressed, and behaved like Daily." They also assert that the producers did little to hide the fact that the story was based on real events. Daily was never consulted on any of this and feels her privacy has been violated.
I'm no lawyer, but the question that comes to mind here is if Daily -- who isn't a celebrity or involved in Hollywood -- was troubled by being recognized as a character in the film, won't suing draw even more attention to it? The names of the characters in the film were changed and it seems incredibly unlikely that the average viewer would ever have made the connection between Snow's character, Amanda, and Ms. Daily. On the other hand, it seems logical to think that Tolan should have gotten some kind of consent from Daily before writing and releasing a film based on an important event in her own life. Clearly, the "this is a work of fiction and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental" doesn't seem to be accurate in this case.
What do the legal eagles in the peanut gallery think? Make your ruling in the comments section.
[via THR, Esq.]