Mattel Is Being Sued Over Adult Film Website Mistake

by

As a gamer who has seen it all, from glitches in games to bugs in real life, I can’t help but chuckle at this latest fiasco involving Mattel and their Wicked dolls. It seems like someone hit the “ctrl + v” instead of “ctrl + c” when copying the URL for the official movie website!

On November 22, 2024, the theater release of Universal Pictures’ “Wicked” (or “Wicked: Part I”) became official. Despite being anticipated as a profitable launch for the studio, this live-action adaptation of Stephen Schwartz’s musical surpassed all predictions and has now secured its place among the season’s most popular movies.

Although some people have raised concerns about the movie’s length, many others have commended its high-quality production, acting, visual effects, direction by Chu, and faithful adaptation of the original.

As a gaming enthusiast, I’m thrilled to share that what you’re witnessing now is just act one of this captivating double-bill. The sequel, “Wicked: Part II,” is set to drop on the silver screen come November 21, 2025. With such an enticing gap till then, it appears we’ll be dissecting and discussing this movie like a juicy video game walkthrough, given there are countless intriguing tales yet to unfold.

Do you recall the uproar caused by Wicked-themed toys containing a pornographic website URL instead of the official movie site link? Well, it appears this incident is leading to legal action. Keep on reading for further insights!

Absolutely, when a popular kids’ film is released, whether it’s live-action or animated, it doesn’t matter, toy manufacturers often aim to capitalize on the success too. Consequently, you’ll typically find a variety of new toys and related merchandise available for purchase, allowing kids worldwide to buy their favorite items inspired by the movie.

For many years, we’ve adhered to a well-established practice, suggesting an efficient operation. However, even with the best systems, errors can occur now and then, as demonstrated by the recent uproar surrounding “Wicked”.

Initially, when the latest collection of “Wicked” toys hit the market, they were intended to come with a direct link to their official website. Moreover, some exclusive edition toys were planned to offer unexpected delights for fans. However, although a link was indeed included, it wasn’t the one that was supposed to be there.

In essence, the URL that was intended to be printed wasn’t “WickedMovie.com,” which is the official website for the movie, but rather simply “Wicked” without the “Movie” part. Unfortunately, there happens to be a porn site with the same name, so when kids and their parents attempted to access it, they unwittingly landed on an inappropriate site.

Indeed, it turned out to be an error, and Mattel, the manufacturer of these toys, expressed their regrets, admitting that they had accidentally printed a wrong web address on the packaging of their ‘Wicked’ collection dolls, mainly sold in the U.S. They advised customers who have purchased these toys to either throw away the product packaging or cover the incorrect link.

As a passionate fan, I’d like to share an interesting legal development. Although the standard issue of this toy usually suffices, a lady from South Carolina has taken Mattel to court over a limited edition doll. She’s filing a lawsuit against them, alleging that her daughter experienced emotional turmoil due to the problem and that Mattel neglected to rectify the mistake by providing compensation. You can find more details about this case here.

Approximately November 11, 2024, the Plaintiff bought a Wicked Doll for her child, who was a minor at the time. Upon opening the box that held the Wicked Doll, the child accessed a website displayed on Defendant’s packaging using an iPhone. To the great surprise of everyone involved, the website, “Wicked.com”, had no connection to the Wicked Doll.

Instead, it was found that explicit pornographic content from Wicked.com appeared on the woman’s phone screen. This content included graphic, fully-explicit nude images of sexual acts, some of which could potentially be presented as evidence in court if needed. Upon seeing these images, the plaintiff’s underage daughter showed them to her mother, who was equally shocked and distressed by their content.

If the Plaintiff had known about the inappropriate flaw in the Product, she wouldn’t have bought it. The Defendant’s actions have led to the Plaintiff suffering losses. On November 11, 2024, the Defendant initiated a recall of the Products, but neglected to provide a refund to consumers affected by this issue. The Plaintiff aims to claim compensation as the Products are contaminated, valueless, and unsuitable for their claimed age-appropriate market.

This lawsuit essentially lays out the facts and reasons for the claim. The woman is seeking compensation, as is common in such cases. However, since the case isn’t rock-solid yet, we’ll have to wait and see how it unfolds. Stay tuned for more updates!

Read More

2024-12-04 19:14