T.I. and Tiny’s lawsuit in opposition to L.O.L. doll maker MGA Leisure resulted in a mistrial Wednesday after jurors heard barred testimony accusing the toy firm of “racist cultural appropriation.”
U.S. District Court docket Choose James V. Selna granted MGA’s movement for mistrial on the sixth day of the multimillion-dollar courtroom battle over claims MGA stole the identify, likeness, and commerce costume of the all-female group OMG Girlz began by Tameka “Tiny” Harris in 2009 and popularized on her actuality present together with her rapper husband, Clifford “T.I.” Harris.
Heading into the trial, Choose Selna dominated that T.I. and Tiny must avoid the claims of their authentic Might 2021 cross-complaint that MGA founder Isaac Larian engages in a “routine observe” of “utilizing his doll enterprise to misappropriate the likeness of Black feminine artists.”
In response to MGA’s mistrial movement, attorneys for T.I. and Tiny violated the ruling Tuesday once they allowed jurors within the Santa Ana, Calif., courtroom to listen to “incurably prejudicial” deposition testimony from a shopper who testified on video that she “stopped buying” MGA’s L.O.L. Shock OMG dolls as soon as she realized the OMG Girlz weren’t affiliated with the toys.
Within the testimony, the girl stated she “didn’t need to help an organization that steals from African Individuals and their concepts.” She additionally said her perception that MGA’s L.O.L. Shock OMG dolls had been “stealing [the O.M.G. Girlz’s] likeness and getting cash off it, [which] occurs on daily basis within the Black group.”
“Listening to the testimony was even worse than studying it within the chilly print. The prejudicial nature of this testimony accusing MGA of racist cultural appropriation can’t be understated,” attorneys for MGA wrote of their Wednesday submitting. “There isn’t any unringing this bell, no means for MGA to counter the improper testimony, and no instruction the courtroom can provide to treatment this downside.”
After siding with MGA, pulling the plug on the trial, and releasing the jury, Choose Selna set a standing convention for Feb. 2 to debate beginning over.
“Because the starting of this case, MGA and Mr. Larian’s technique has been to disclaim accountability, distract from the information, and demean our shoppers – the OMG Girlz, and Mr. and Mrs. Harris. The tried intimidation and bullying techniques by Mr. Larian and his authorized workforce are lastly coming to gentle. We is not going to be deterred nor discouraged. We look ahead to having a good trial and bringing justice to the OMG Girlz and their enduring model,” T.I. and Tiny’s lead lawyer Erin Ranahan stated in a press release to Rolling Stone Wednesday evening.
“Range has all the time been a key worth at MGA Leisure in each our individuals and our toys. The truth is, MGA introduced variety to the style doll class greater than 21 years in the past with the introduction of Bratz dolls. We’re upset that the trial was reduce quick however look ahead to vindicating our rights within the subsequent trial,” an MGA spokesperson stated after the mistrial ruling.
Attorneys for T.I. and Tiny didn’t instantly reply to a request for remark Wednesday.
In her testimony final week, Tiny informed jurors she believed MGA “ripped off” the “signature” look of the OMG Girlz, the group that advanced right into a trio that includes her daughter Zonnique Pullins, generally known as “Star,” Bahja Rodriguez, generally known as “Magnificence,” and Breaunna Womack, generally known as “Babydoll.”
She stated the group toured broadly, appeared on TV, and have become immediately recognizable for his or her brightly coloured hair, layered clothes, and exaggerated equipment.
She stated one L.O.L. Shock OMG doll particularly, named Chillax, sported a “blatant” copy of the black-and-white costume the ladies wore on their “All Round The World” tour.
“This doll is just too acquainted. The outfit for me is an enormous, huge deal,” she testified. “I wouldn’t be right here if it wasn’t the OMG model, all of the totally different coincidences, the outfit we created. This explicit outfit was designed, created, handmade, if you’ll, for the ladies’ tour.”
Tiny, a member of the multi-platinum Nineties R&B group Xscape and a Grammy-winning songwriter acknowledged for her contributions to the TLC hit “No Scrubs,” testified that she and the OMG Girlz labored laborious to create their model and deserved compensation.
“I’m merely stating that this model was ripped off,” she testified.
Attorneys for Larian and MGA disagreed. In her opening assertion final week, MGA lawyer Jennifer Keller referred to as T.I. and Tiny’s claims of infringement a “shakedown.”
“This case is about greed. That’s what it’s about,” Keller informed jurors.
“[They] need tens of tens of millions of {dollars} from MGA Leisure for doing completely nothing, and I do imply nothing. We’re going to point out you that the OMG Girlz truly copied us, and now complain we appear to be them,” she stated. “They had been development followers, not development setters.”
In response to Keller, MGA marketed dolls in its wildly fashionable Bratz line again in 2005 that had been styled as musicians with the identical vivid pink, purple, and blue hair claimed by the OMG Girlz. She stated even the lady group’s identify was spinoff, contemplating the “z” on the finish just like Bratz.