June 4, 2025
MGA is requesting that the court docket overturn the $71 million verdict or cut back the damages, as they consider that the decision was legally flawed.
In January, T.I.’s $71 million judgment towards MGA Leisure was restored after $53 million in punitive damages have been stripped away. Nonetheless, MGA has requested one other trial in an try and reverse the judgment awarded to the Atlanta rapper and his spouse, Tiny Harris.
In response to AllHipHop, the leisure firm is making an attempt to get a fourth trial relating to the couple suing the corporate for stealing the likeness of their former lady group, OMG Girlz. MGA requests that the court docket overturn the $71 million verdict or cut back the damages, as they consider it was legally flawed.
They’re asking if the court docket doesn’t agree with their request, they obtain a brand new trial.
The corporate argues that the doll’s look was not related to T.I. and Tiny’s group, and even when so, the group had already deserted it years earlier. They declare that there’s no proof of shoppers being confused between the dolls and the OMG Girlz. Including to their argument, MGA states that the couple has not confirmed that there was precise hurt or a misappropriation of their commerce secrets and techniques. They cite the First Modification, saying it protects their inventive expression in designing the dolls.
Within the unique lawsuit, T.I. and Tiny sued MGA Leisure for copying the likeness of the OMG Girlz group, which featured their daughter, Zonnique Pullins, and two different women. MGA made seven dolls that allegedly copied the lady group.
The jury dominated in favor of T.I. and Tiny, however U.S. District Choose James Selna later acknowledged that there was not sufficient proof to indicate that MGA acted in a fashion that might legally warrant the punitive damages within the infringement case. After the court docket briefly negated the $53.6 million, it set a listening to for each side to plead their case.
The listening to centered on whether or not the jury’s verdicts have been advisory or if the award quantity can be left as much as Selna. The choose upheld the ruling after stating that each side had agreed to a jury verdict.