\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div> \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tUnited States District Court<\/cite><\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n \n\tMGA Files Preemptive Lawsuit, Dec. 22, 2020<\/strong><\/p>\n \n\tAfter receiving the letter accusing it of copying the OMG Girlz\u2019s signature look, MGA rushed to federal court and asked a judge to step in and affirm that it owned everything about its L.O.L. Surprise! O.M.G. dolls and did nothing wrong. In the 10-page complaint, MGA said its L.O.L. Surprise! products were among the bestselling toys in the U.S. It also claimed OMG Girlz disbanded in 2015, so there was \u201cno likelihood of confusion that the OMG Girlz sponsored or are associated with L.O.L. Surprise!\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tT.I. and Tiny File Counterclaim, Feb. 22, 2021<\/strong><\/p>\n \n\tThe Harrises, on behalf of the OMG Girlz, answered the lawsuit and filed a counterclaim alleging MGA illegally copied the trade dress, name and brand of the OMG Girlz without consent. They said Larian and MGA \u201cengaged in both cultural appropriation and outright theft of the intellectual property, brand and image of a musical recording group of young multicultural women.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tFirst Trial, Jan. 25, 2023<\/strong><\/p>\n \n\tThe first attempt to reach a verdict in the case ended in a mistrial after jurors heard barred testimony<\/a> accusing the toy company of \u201cracist cultural appropriation.\u201d U.S. District Court Judge James V. Selna made a pre-trial ruling that the Harrises had to steer clear of their claims that Larian engaged in a \u201croutine practice\u201d of \u201cusing his doll business to misappropriate the likeness of Black female artists.\u201d So it was a violation when a consumer testified on video that she \u201cstopped purchasing\u201d MGA\u2019s dolls when she learned the OMG Girlz were not affiliated with the toys. The woman said she \u201cdid not want to support a company that steals from African Americans and their ideas.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tSecond Trial, May 9, 2023<\/strong><\/p>\n \n\tA second trial in the case started in Santa Ana, California, with Judge Selna at the helm again. Two weeks later, a jury returned a verdict in favor of MGA. The jury found that the OMG Girlz had not proven that the L.O.L. Surprise! O.M.G. doll line infringed the OMG Girlz\u2019 colorful trade dress or misappropriated the OMG Girlz\u2019 name, likeness, or identity.<\/p>\n \n\tVerdict Overturned, June 8, 2023<\/strong><\/p>\n \n\tThe U.S. Supreme Court issued a major ruling<\/a> that found the First Amendment didn\u2019t necessarily protect a dog toy company that created a humorous chew toy that looked like a bottle of Jack Daniel\u2019s whiskey. The ruling led Judge Selna to find that one of the jury instructions related to the Harrises\u2019 trade dress claim was erroneous. He granted the Harrises the right to a third trial in the case.<\/p>\n \n\tThird Trial Begins, Sept. 3, 2024<\/strong><\/p>\n \n\tWhen the Harrises started their third trial, they narrowed the scope of their claims to just seven dolls<\/a> out of the dozens they previously challenged. T.I. and Tiny both took the witness stand<\/a>, but it was MGA designer Lora Stephens whose testimony may have been the most significant. She told jurors she knew about the OMG Girlz before she started working at MGA in 2017 and that she followed Tiny on Instagram. She also had a photo of Womack on her Pinterest board, though the inspiration board had approximately 1,200 images total. Stephens admitted MGA had not asked her about her knowledge of OMG Girlz before the company responded to a discovery request in the case saying no employees knew about the group before the lawsuit.<\/p>\n \n\tNew Verdict Awards Harrises $71 million, Sept. 23, 2024<\/strong><\/p>\n \n\tThe jury found MGA infringed on the OMG Girlz\u2019 trade dress with respect to all seven dolls: Chillax, Roller Chick, Metal Chick, Bhad Gurl, Prism, Miss Divine, and Runaway Diva. The jury also found the same seven dolls misappropriated the OMG Girlz\u2019 name, likeness, or identity. The panel awarded $17,872,253 in compensatory damages and $53,616,759 in punitive damages. \u201cI think justice was served. I think it\u2019s a testament to the relentlessness and resilience of my wife, daughter, and nieces,\u201d T.I. told\u00a0Rolling Stone<\/em>\u00a0by phone, minutes after the verdict. \u201cWe\u2019re just happy we were able to come out on top and fight for creatives and our intellectual property that large corporations seem to think is just public domain and free for all to come and grab and use.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tMGA Challenge, May 27, 2025<\/strong><\/p>\n \n\tMGA filed a motion claiming \u201cthe staggering amount of the punitive award\u201d violated its right to due process. The company asked Judge Selna to step in and vacate the \u201cconstitutionally excessive\u201d award or, at a minimum, order a new trial.<\/p>\n \n\tPunitive Damages Award Gutted, July 8, 2025<\/strong><\/p>\n