- First Trial:Ended in a mistrial amid heated arguments over jury instructions and the sensitive issue of cultural appropriation in the toy industry.
- Second Trial:MGA scored a win, but it was swiftly undone by a court ruling citing procedural missteps and a pivotal Supreme Court decision that changed the legal landscape for copyright cases.
- Third Trial:In September 2024, the momentum swung dramatically. A jury unanimously found that 13 dolls infringed on the group’s image and two more on their likeness. The court awarded the OMG Girlz and their creators a jaw-dropping $71 million—$17.9 million in actual damages and a punishing $53.6 million in punitive damages.
But MGA isn’t taking the loss lying down. Their legal team, in a flurry of post-trial motions filed this week, argues the verdict is legally unsound and the damages wildly excessive.
Key Points in MGA’s Motion:
- Trade Dress Rights?MGA claims the OMG Girlz never had enforceable trade dress rights—that is, the public didn’t strongly associate the group’s style with them alone, or, if they did, the Girlz “abandoned” that look years ago.
- Consumer Confusion:The company insists there’s “no actual evidence” that fans or buyers confused the dolls with the group.
- No Harm, No Foul:I. and Tiny, MGA argues, failed to show genuine damage or that their trade secrets were stolen.
- Protected Expression:Citing the First Amendment, MGA claims its doll designs are creative expression, not copyright theft or infringement.
Most explosively, MGA demands the court either overturn the entire ruling or, failing that, order a new trial. As a fallback, they’re seeking a drastic reduction of the damages—particularly the $53 million punitive award, which MGA calls “excessive and unsupported,” arguing there was no finding of malice, fraud, or willful misconduct.
The implications ripple far beyond T.I., Tiny, and MGA. At stake: the boundaries between inspiration and imitation, the power of celebrity image, and how the law should treat “cultural appropriation” claims—especially when those claims intersect with billion-dollar product lines.
Legal scholars are watching closely, noting that the case could set a precedent for how artists and creators protect their brands and likenesses from commercial exploitation—while also raising thorny questions about the rights of toy makers and other creative industries.
As of now, the judge has not ruled on MGA’s new motion. If the verdict stands, it will mark a rare and significant win for musicians fighting major corporations over image rights. If not, the parties could be facing yet another drawn-out trial—potentially the fourth in a legal war that shows no signs of cooling.
For T.I. and Tiny, this is about more than money. “This is about standing up for artists’ rights and making sure our legacy—and our creativity—can’t just be copied and sold by giant corporations,” T.I. said after the verdict.
MGA, meanwhile, claims it’s fighting not just for its own interests, but for “the freedom of creative expression” in America’s toy aisles.
No matter the outcome, the world is watching as two titans—of music and toys—clash in a case that will echo across entertainment, commerce, and the law.
Explore More
🔗 Follow us on X @RealUSAHerald
