Toy giant Mattel is facing a lawsuit filed by a mother who alleges her daughter accessed a pornographic website through a link printed on the packaging of a Wicked doll.
The dolls, inspired by characters from the film adaptation of the musical Wicked, were created to resemble British actress Cynthia Erivo and American singer Ariana Grande, who star in the movie. However, instead of providing a link to the movie’s official website, the packaging mistakenly directed users to an adult entertainment site with a similar name. The error was noticed in October, leading to a recall of the affected dolls on November 11.
The lawsuit, a class action filed in federal court in Los Angeles, highlights the distress caused by the error. Holly Ricketson, a mother from South Carolina, claims she purchased one of the dolls for her daughter, unaware of the packaging mistake.
According to court documents, her daughter accessed the website and encountered explicit material. “She showed me these hardcore images, and we were both horrified,” Ricketson stated, describing the emotional toll the incident has had on them.
The mother asserts that she would never have bought the doll had she known about the error, and she is particularly frustrated that Mattel has not offered refunds despite recalling the faulty dolls.
The lawsuit describes the packaging misprint as an “inexcusable error” and accuses Mattel of negligence and failing to ensure the suitability of their products for children. It further alleges that the company violated California’s consumer protection laws by selling products unfit for sale.
Mattel, while declining to comment on the lawsuit specifically, did issue a statement when the mistake was first identified. “We deeply regret this error, which is not appropriate for children. Our intention was to direct customers to the official WickedMovie.com page,” the company said. They also confirmed that sales of Wicked dolls with corrected packaging have resumed both in stores and online.
Ms. Ricketson’s lawsuit seeks at least $5 million in damages, not just for her family but for anyone across the U.S. who purchased the dolls with the flawed packaging. She argues that this mistake has caused emotional distress for both her and her daughter, emphasizing the serious impact such an oversight can have on families.
“This was supposed to be a gift of joy for my child, but it turned into a moment of trauma,” she explained. The lawsuit further underscores that products recommended for children aged four and up, as Mattel suggests for these dolls, must meet stricter standards of quality and appropriateness.
The incident has drawn widespread attention, sparking debates about corporate accountability in the manufacturing and marketing of children’s products. Consumer advocacy groups have weighed in, urging companies to implement more rigorous checks to avoid similar issues in the future.
Critics argue that Mattel, as a global leader in the toy industry, has a responsibility to ensure that such significant errors do not occur, particularly given their influence on young audiences. “When a brand trusted by parents makes a mistake of this magnitude, it raises questions about oversight and accountability,” said one consumer rights advocate.
While Mattel works to rebuild trust by continuing to sell the corrected dolls, the lawsuit could have lasting implications for the company. It serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of vigilance in marketing products for children and maintaining brand integrity.
The case also underscores the potential fallout from small but critical errors in an era where consumer trust is easily shaken. As the legal process unfolds, it remains to be seen how Mattel will address the concerns raised by the lawsuit and the broader public reaction to this controversy.
