BY: Walker
Published 8 hours ago
Mattel is being sued for mistakenly printing the URL for a pornographic site on the packaging for special-edition “Wicked” dolls.
A South Carolina woman 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.”
via: EW
