Burning Question: What Chance Does Real-Life 'Wolf' Character Have in Toupee-Targeting Defamation Case?

The man who inspired a supporting character in The Wolf of Wall Street is suing the producers of the film, saying the movie defamed him to the tune of $25 million. Does he have a chance in court?

Not really, attorneys tell me. But, in a way, Andrew Greene already has won, hasn’t he? Here we are, sitting in front of our screens, giving free publicity to a man so angry about the way his toupee was mocked onscreen that he needed to launch a lawsuit.

That’s the crux of Greene’s legal salvo, by the way — not the fact that the flick renamed him as Nicky “Rugrat” Koskoff, but rather that the tale highlights his hairpiece in an unflattering fashion, along with drug use and other undesirable behavior. (In the film, the character is played by P.J. Byrne.)

[Related: Should We Feel Guilty for Enjoying the Excess of Wolf of Wall Street?]

"In multiple scenes in the movie, ‘Rugrat’s’ use of a toupee is accentuated and mocked in an egregiously offensive manner," the suit reads. "The motion picture introduces ‘Rugrat’ by referencing his ‘piece of sh— hairpiece.’

"In another scene, investigators ask whether his hair is real. Characters are also seen attempting to grab the toupee in a scene."

Watch P.J. Byrne — and His Hairpiece — in The Wolf of Wall Street:

Again, just to refresh your memory: $25 million. Greene wants $25 million because of this.

To be fair, Greene says he never gave filmmakers permission to depict him, and that the portrayal has damaged his reputation.

"Mr. Greene will be permanently linked to the crimes and loathsome behavior portrayed by his likeness in the motion picture, despite never having been interviewed, questioned, charged, imprisoned, or even arrested for the illicit and despicable behavior shown in the motion picture," the complaint reads.

We move on.

[Related: Jonah Hill’s Shockingly Small Wolf of Wall Street Payday]

This isn’t the first time that a biopic has spurred a lawsuit like this; the descendants of Auda ibu Tayi, the inspiration for Anthony Quinn’s character in Lawrence of Arabia, brought a defamation lawsuit over how their ancestor was portrayed as a murderer in the classic film. (In contrast, Bedouin tradition calls for hospitality to travelers, not the killing of them.) That case never got off the ground.

Ditto the DEA agents who claim they were wronged by the based-on-a-true-story Denzel Washington-Russell Crowe thriller American Gangster.

Sense a pattern?

"I don’t think Greene has a case," says litigation attorney Irwin Feinberg. Defamation cases are infamously hard to press; a litigant must prove not only that a defendant published harmful falsehoods but also that those lies injured him. (“For one, Greene actually wears a toupee, as I understand it,” Feinberg says. Greene would also need to prove that he never did the drugs shown in the film.)

"The only element that’s really there is the element of publication," or the wide, public release of the film, Feinberg says, "but everything else is going to be very difficult for Greene to prove."

And there’s more. If a judge determines that Greene is a public figure, an even higher bar is set; Greene must not only prove all of the above, but also that the script was written with malicious intent.

So where can we expect this suit to go? Probably nowhere, Feinberg predicts… not even a payoff.

"In this kind of case, I would expect no settlement because the case appears to be weak and marginal," Feinberg says. "If this were not a marginal case, or if it was causing the filmmakers to spend money they didn’t have, I could see a settlement, but not in this case."

Got a Burning Question? Tweet it to us @YahooBurningQs.

Leslie Gornstein is an entertainment writer and the host of the weekly Hollywood gossip podcast The Fame Fatale.