<\/p>\n
A prior jury sat through a three-week trial and decided in September 2024 that MGA misappropriated the name, likeness, or identity of the teen pop trio OMG Girlz<\/a> when it sold seven models in its wildly popular L.O.L. Surprise! O.M.G. dolls line. The jury awarded T.I. and Tiny, who formed and own the OMG Girlz project, $17.9 million in compensatory damages and $53.6 million in punitive damages. Jurors found that MGA knowingly copied the name, neon hair, and distinctive outfits<\/a> of the girl group, which featured Tiny\u2019s daughter, Zonnique \u201cStar\u201d Pullins, along with Bahja \u201cBeauty\u201d Rodriguez and Breaunna \u201cBabydoll\u201d Womack.<\/p>\n In a ruling last July, U.S. District Judge James V. Selna said the massive punitive award was not supported by the evidence. He gave the couple a choice: accept $1 in punitive damages on top of the $17.9 million compensatory award and end the case, or go to trial again. The Atlanta-based musicians chose the fourth trial.<\/p>\n At the final status hearing on Monday, Judge Selna heard arguments about evidence that MGA wants to keep from jurors. He declined to issue an immediate ruling but signaled he would not grant MGA\u2019s request to exclude any debate over how \u201cOMG\u201d ended up in its doll line\u2019s name. A lawyer for MGA argued the term is so commonplace that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office says it\u2019s free for others to use. <\/p>\n \u201cHow can a generic term for which there can be no liability in a trademark context now be a basis for punitive damages?\u201d MGA attorney Mark Finkelstein argued. \u201cAnd there is no evidence that OMG was selected based on the OMG Girlz,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n The judge wasn\u2019t persuaded. \u201cI understand your position, but I just don\u2019t agree [that] \u2018OMG\u2019 is always sanitized and insulated regardless of what it\u2019s tied to,\u201d Judge Selna said from the bench. In a tentative ruling, he said the term \u201cOMG\u201d could form the basis for consumer confusion when considered alongside other \u201cdistinctive elements such as hairstyle, wardrobe, and music themes.\u201d Promising to issue a final ruling in the coming days, Judge Selna said he was leaning toward allowing the jury to consider MGA\u2019s use of \u201cOMG\u201d alongside other factors to determine \u201cmalice, oppression, or fraud\u201d in the context of punitive damages.<\/p>\n The judge is also weighing a request from MGA to block T.I. and Tiny\u2019s lawyers from bringing in evidence showing prior instances where MGA allegedly copied other artists. In one example, T.I. and Tiny want jurors to hear that recording artist Victoria Monet claimed on social media that MGA copied one of her music videos to create a promotional video for its line of Bratz dolls. MGA\u2019s lawyers argued Monday that the evidence should come in because it showed \u201csimilar acts.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re not trying to prove propensity, because we\u2019ve already got liability. We\u2019re trying to show intent and the reprehensibility, the pattern of conduct,\u201d John Keville, a lawyer for T.I. and Tiny, argued. \u201cIt\u2019s evidence of similar acts of copying or infringing on the intellectual property of others.\u201d<\/p>\n MGA\u2019s lawyer, Chad Hummel, argued that the alleged copying of \u201cunrelated celebrities\u201d would require \u201ca mini trial within the trial\u201d to defend against the claims. In his tentative ruling, Judge Selna signaled he would side with MGA. \u201cBringing in this evidence risks confusing the jury by suggesting that it should determine punitive damages based on allegations related to MGA\u2019s past actions,\u201d he reasoned.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The first trial in the case started in January 2023 and ended in a mistrial <\/a>when jurors heard barred testimony accusing the toy company of \u201ccultural appropriation.\u201d A second trial a few months later cleared MGA of wrongdoing, but that verdict was overturned on appeal due to a Supreme Court ruling<\/a> giving more weight to evidence about consumer confusion. The third trial ended with the $71 million verdict that Judge Selna later overturned in part.<\/p>\n At the third trial, T.I. and Tiny alleged MGA marketed seven specific dolls in its wildly popular \u201cL.O.L. Surprise! O.M.G.\u201d line that clearly copied the way the OMG Girlz appeared at \u201cvery specific public events\u201d or in publicized photos. MGA denied the allegations. The company\u2019s billionaire founder, Isaac Larian, testified that T.I., Tiny, and the three members of the OMG Girlz played no role in the design of his dolls. He called them \u201cextortionists.\u201d After the verdict, T.I. and Tiny said they were vindicated.<\/p>\n