Not only is Wicked (Part 1!) defying gravity at the box office, the film is also raking in a fortune from an arsenal of popular merch that’s been rolled out just in time for the holidays. Over a month before the movie was even released, people were already fighting over the official Stanley water cups, and those didn’t even have any character likenesses printed on them — they were just pink and green! But no worries, because of course witches Glinda and Elphaba were destined to get their very own Barbies. Which they did last month, in several costumes for each character taken directly from scenes in the film. There was just one, teenie weenie, problem: parents and kids followed directions on the back of the box to get more info from the film’s website, only instead of linking to the right place (WickedMovie.com), they ended up visiting a page with adult content. Now, in an entirely foreseeable move even the wizard and I could see coming, a parent is suing Mattel for the x-rated misprint:
Mattel has hit a legal bump in the yellow brick road.
After mistakenly printing the URL for a pornographic website on the packaging of dolls tied to the blockbuster movie musical Wicked, the toy maker is being sued by a South Carolina woman who says she and her minor daughter were “irreparably harmed” by the mixup.
In a proposed class action filed Tuesday in Los Angeles federal court, which Entertainment Weekly has reviewed, Holly Ricketson alleges that she bought a Wicked doll for her daughter, who subsequently “used an iPhone to visit the website shown” on the packaging. “To her absolute shock the website, ‘Wicked.com,’ had nothing to do with the Wicked Doll,” the complaint says. “Rather, Wicked.com pasted scenes of pornographic advertisements across her phone screen.” Ricketson and her daughter were both “horrified” by what they saw.
Ricketson’s suit accuses Mattel of unjust enrichment, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, violation of California’s false advertising law, and more.
Mattel, the California-based company behind classic toys such as Barbie and Hot Wheels, told EW that it does not comment on pending litigation. A spokesperson also provided a statement that said, “The Wicked Dolls have returned for sale with correct packaging at retailers online and in stores to meet the strong consumer demand for the products. The previous misprint on the packaging in no way impacts the value or play experience provided by the product itself in the limited number of units sold before the correction. We express our gratitude to our consumers and retailers for their understanding and patience while we worked to remedy the issue.”
Mattel apologized for the error last month, after it was discovered that customers were being directed to an adult website rather than WickedMovie.com. Customers were advised to discard the product packaging and obscure the incorrect link.
But that wasn’t enough for Ricketson and her legal team, who say in the complaint that Mattel “did not offer any refund for consumers who had already purchased the dolls such as Plaintiff and the putative class members as plead herein.”
One of Ricketson’s attorneys, Roy T. Willey IV, said in a statement to EW, “Parents trust that products marketed to children are safe and free from risks of exposure to harmful content. Unfortunately, that trust was broken in this instance.”
He added, “This lawsuit is not just about recovering the cost of these dolls; it is about holding corporations accountable for the responsibility they have to safeguard children. When a company markets a product to young children, it has an obligation to ensure that every aspect of that product — from its design to its packaging — is free of risks to their safety and well-being.”
[From EW via Yahoo! Entertainment]
Yeah, I don’t see how Mattel has any way out from eating sh-t over this. But to fully appreciate their f–k up, you have to backtrack to this summer when they proudly announced how they were using generative AI to work on Barbie packaging. They said it would make things “better or stronger” and enable “the creative process to move faster.” Better, faster, stronger… just not factually accurater! As I said in the aftermath of the Megaflopolis trailer using AI to fill in film review quotes — which all turned out to be fake — AI is NOT a reliable fact-checking tool! This is a job for humans. It is not glamorous, it requires research and diligence, and there are no shortcuts. Which is why I think Mattel’s obvious next step should be releasing a Fact-Checker Barbie. Will it help with the lawsuit? Not at all. But it would be a savvy PR spin, an acknowledgment of their mistake, and just a good measure to promote and honor the profession. This Barbie keeps authors, outlets, and companies from making public fools of themselves.
Mattel accidentally released official #Wicked dolls that link to a p-rn site
The URL was supposed to be 'Wickedmovie' but instead just says 'Wicked' and leads to a site requiring users to be 18 or older pic.twitter.com/Zf0Oq73G7j
— Culture Crave 🍿 (@CultureCrave) November 10, 2024
Did Mattel screw up? Yes. Do I think a lawsuit over this is ridiculous? Also yes.
Thank you, Izzy! ITA. Mattel should be ashamed of themselves, but so should this mom. From everything I see posted, she didn’t have anything in place to stop her tween (software and parental oversight!!) from accessing this website, the website asks for you to be 18+, which the kid is not, and they continued to the more intense porn themselves. The merch is being recalled, everyone’s been warned, and this mom now has to explain the birds and bees in relation to the site sooner than expected. Don’t clog the legal system with it.
A basic axiom of good marketing is always call the 800- number and check the website before going to print. Someone at Mattel skipped this basic, yet fundamental step. A lawsuit will certainly make sure that never happens again.
Absolutely. It was probably the graphic designer’s placeholder assuming the information would be proofread. Maybe Mattel was trying to buy that domain name too. Definitely Mattel’s fault but a very frivolous lawsuit.
This lawsuit is a money grab, and this parent found the right opportunity.
Between this and parents complaining about Sabrina Carpenter’s concerts being too sexual for children, it seems like parental responsibility is dead. Pay attention to what your kids are doing because you are the adult!
Emily, yes to what you said. Look, I’m an American living in Europe, so sometimes how news gets to me is different or I’ve been influenced by where I live.
What’s been reported here is that Mattel realized the mistake a month ago and reported that people should toss the packaging.
Next, the porn site itself comes with an 18+ warning. Like gambling sites or places that sell products for adults. Where I live, this is by law–it’s the legal check.
Parents are highly advised to keep an eye on young kids and the internet. It’s fairly normal for elementary school parents to childlock searches, put a timer on wifi access, etc.
According to what’s been reported here, the mom gave the doll after the warning about the dite was in the news. Her kid had access to an iphone without childproofing for these websites. And the kid had to enter her age as 18+.
Do I think Mattel is blameless? No. Should they have offered a refund? That would have been nice. It’s good they are finally being forced to recall the dolls to rectify the typo.
However, is this worthy of a million dollar lawsuit? This mother seemingly is neither protecting her kid from porn sites, gambling sites, some gaming sites, places that sell alcohol, cheating on your partner, etc,… nor has she taught her kid what to do when the 18+ message pops up onscreen. That phone has cookies which allow 18+ advertising from other sites. I really hope that if this woman follows through with this, she winds up facing the consequences of her lax parenting. Mattel, repeat, was wrong, but so is this mom.
I don’t know what they saw, but what they said on the radio (yup) was that the video was clothed and not that bad. Of course, I live in a place where nudity and sex is way less bad for society than guns and shooting.
Lol of course a parent is suing for “irreparable harm” 🥴 I wonder how old her kid is if she’s allowed to use an iPhone to look up websites on the internet on her own. These sites aren’t just open, you have to enter a birthdate to prove you’re 18+. Mattel was definitely wrong for this but a filing a lawsuit is a bit extra. But maybe it’s just me, I think the mix-up is hilarious 😆
People confirmed that when the error was first discovered, which was some time ago, just going to the link showed parts of explicit content. Hard pornography. Of course only as advertising for their purchasable product, but again – it was there for all eyes to see. They’ve changed it since.
Now, would a child be irreversibly harmed by that? I don’t know, and I personally doubt it. But kids still shouldn’t have access to that, and you can’t blame the parents if they allow a child to take a look at what is supposed to be a toys page. So there is no denying this was a huge mistake by Mattel. Maybe they should be hiring actual artists to do their job, including checking the links they provide.
And maybe sue the actual site over the content being available without age checking? But, I guess, Mattel is easier money.
It was Mattel’s fault children were exposed to that site – without even looking for porn. It’s a silly situation, but I don’t see how Mattel could be seen as blameless here.
Definitely an opportunist. No child is typing in a website URL. Probably no adults either honestly. Doesn’t everyone just search it?
Irreparable harm is the standard for getting injunctive relief and just means the harm can’t be addressed with a monetary judgment. If you can be “made whole” at a later date, e.g., with an award of money damages, you typically cannot get an injunction (or at least not a temporary injunction early in the case). Not having read the actual lawsuit, I suspect they were seeking an injunction to force Mattel to pull the dolls off the shelves and re-package them or otherwise fix the packaging. That would probably be moot now since Mattel voluntarily did so. It may also be that they are alleging irreparable harm because their money damages are nominal and to make the suit worth it for them/painful for Mattel, they’re seeking punitive or exemplary damages that require a higher showing of harm. I agree the lawsuit sounds really stupid, but using the term irreparable harm doesn’t necessarily mean that this mom believes her child is going to be traumatized for life.
Ha, “accurater.” That was good. Yes, a fact checker barbie would be hilarious. It is somewhat surprising to me that they didn’t have any one person at least make sure everything was right before starting production, but I guess they decided saving money was more important
If you think this lawsuit is frivolous, ask yourself why you are defending a corporation worth $6.9 billion. And then watch Hot Coffee and get back to me.
Agreed
Not concerned about Mattel or saying the lawsuit is frivolous (only testimony can determine that), but curious if you are meaning that it’s okay to bring frivolous lawsuits against a rich defendant?
I can’t answer that in an informed way… what is considered “frivolous?” I do know that there has been a campaign, waged by corporations, to label lawsuits by ordinary citizens as frivolous. Unfortunately, many corporations have shown that the only language they understand is “lawsuit,” and that it is the only way to enact change.
…as someone who was raised in SC I’d expect nothing less lol