The T.I. and Tiny lawsuit is a trade dress and likeness case in which Clifford “T.I.” Harris and Tameka “Tiny” Harris sued toy company MGA Entertainment, claiming its L.O.L. Surprise! O.M.G. doll line copied the OMG Girlz, the teen pop group Tiny formed in Atlanta in 2009. A federal jury awarded them $71 million in September 2024. In July 2025, the trial judge upheld $17.9 million in compensatory damages but vacated $53.6 million in punitive damages, and a fourth trial on punitives alone is scheduled to begin June 23, 2026, in Santa Ana, California.1Legal Affairs and Trials. Judge Eliminates $53 Million in Punitive Damages
What the Lawsuit Is About
Tiny Harris formed the OMG Girlz in 2009 with her daughter Zonnique “Star” Pullins, Bahja “Beauty” Rodriguez, and Breaunna “Babydoll” Womack. The group toured through 2015 and became known for neon-colored hair, bold makeup, and experimental streetwear looks.2The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Atlanta’s OMG Girlz at Center of T.I. and Tiny Lawsuit Return for New Tour
In 2019, MGA launched L.O.L. Surprise! O.M.G. (Outrageous Millennial Girls), a fashion doll extension of its L.O.L. Surprise! line. The Harrises alleged that seven specific dolls, including ones named Chillax, Roller Chick, Metal Chick, and Bhad Gurl, were modeled on the OMG Girlz’s appearances at public events and in promotional photos. Tiny Harris pointed to the Chillax doll’s black-and-white two-piece outfit and neon blue hair as a copy of a look worn during the group’s 2013 “All Around The World” tour.3Rolling Stone. T.I. Tiny Harris OMG Girlz LOL Surprise Dolls Trial Timeline
MGA moved first legally. On December 22, 2020, it filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, asking the court to rule that its dolls did not infringe the OMG Girlz’s intellectual property.4CourtListener. MGA Entertainment Inc. v. Clifford T.I. Harris The Harrises counterclaimed through their companies Grand Hustle LLC, Pretty Hustle LLC, and OMG Girlz LLC, alleging trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act, misappropriation of name and likeness under California law, and unfair competition. They named MGA and its founder, Isaac Larian, as counter-defendants. The case, No. 2:20-cv-11548, went to Senior U.S. District Judge James V. Selna.5Sheppard Mullin. Sheppard Wins $71 Million Trade Dress Verdict for Musicians Against MGA Entertainment
How the Case Reached a $71 Million Verdict
It took three trials. The first, in January 2023, ended in a mistrial after jurors heard prohibited deposition testimony referencing cultural misappropriation and racism, subjects the judge had barred.6Reuters. Cultural Appropriation Testimony Derails OMG Dolls Trademark Trial
The second trial, in May 2023, ended with a defense verdict for MGA on all claims. Larian called the lawsuit “extortion” and a “shakedown” after the win.7Legal Affairs and Trials. Jury Finds in Favor of Toymaker MGA That verdict did not survive long. On June 8, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, holding unanimously that the Rogers test, a First Amendment threshold defense in trademark cases involving expressive works, does not apply when a defendant uses a mark as a designation of source for its own goods.8SCOTUSblog. Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC That contradicted the jury instructions Judge Selna had given, which had included a favorable First Amendment framework for MGA. Selna vacated the verdict and granted a third trial.9Kidscreen. T.I. and Tiny Win a US$71 Million Lawsuit Against MGA
Opening statements in the third trial began September 3, 2024. The Harrises’ new lead counsel, John Keville and Chante Westmoreland of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, narrowed the case to seven dolls they said had a “1-to-1 correlation and unmistakable resemblance” to the OMG Girlz.10Bloomberg Law. Unrivaled 2025: John Keville and Chante Westmoreland of Sheppard Mullin All three OMG Girlz members testified. MGA’s defense, from Umberg Zipser LLP and Willenken LLP, called the case a “money grab,” argued the group had been inactive since 2015, and said “OMG” is a generic acronym. Larian testified the group played no role in his designs.11Law Commentary. Toymaker MGA Faces Punitive Damages Trial After T.I. and Tiny’s $71 Million OMG Girlz Verdict
One document drew heavy attention: a 2019 internal MGA email from an executive to Larian reading, “We need to be careful to protect our non-white OMG base. OMG skews nonwhite. Specifically black.”12Legal Affairs and Trials. Federal Jury Says Toymaker Should Pay
On September 23, 2024, the eight-person jury found that 14 dolls misappropriated the OMG Girlz’s likeness and infringed their trade dress, with one more doll found to have misappropriated likeness alone. Jurors rejected MGA’s First Amendment defense and found the company had acted with “oppression, fraud or malice.” Total damages: $71,489,012. That figure broke into $17,872,253 in compensatory damages, tied to MGA’s profits on the seven dolls at issue, and $53,616,759 in punitive damages, exactly three times the compensatory number.12Legal Affairs and Trials. Federal Jury Says Toymaker Should Pay
Why the Judge Cut the Award to $18 Million
On July 8, 2025, Judge Selna issued a post-trial order that left the compensatory award and liability findings intact but vacated the entire $53.6 million in punitive damages. He gave the Harrises a choice: accept $1 in punitive damages or try the punitive question again.1Legal Affairs and Trials. Judge Eliminates $53 Million in Punitive Damages
His reasoning turned on the California standard, which requires clear and convincing evidence of willful misconduct. Selna concluded the evidence fell “short of clear and convincing” on that point. He found no reliable proof that MGA had actual knowledge of the OMG Girlz’s trade dress or a specific intent to use their likeness in designing the dolls. He treated MGA’s continued sale of the dolls as consistent with a belief that it was not infringing, not with malice. The harm, he wrote, was “predominantly economic in nature, leaning against reprehensibility,” and the plaintiffs were not “financially vulnerable.”1Legal Affairs and Trials. Judge Eliminates $53 Million in Punitive Damages
The Harrises and the OMG Girlz members responded with a statement saying they had stood up “for every creative who wants to protect their vision and brand from unfair use without recognition and compensation,” and calling out how hard it is “for creatives, especially Black artists and young entrepreneurs, to protect their intellectual property from billion-dollar corporations.”13People. T.I. Tiny $71 Million Award Doll Trial Cut Down $18 Million
What Happens Next
On July 10, 2025, the Harrises rejected the $1 remittitur and chose a new trial.1Legal Affairs and Trials. Judge Eliminates $53 Million in Punitive Damages Attorney John Keville said the couple expected “another jury will be similarly offended by MGA’s maliciousness and copying.”13People. T.I. Tiny $71 Million Award Doll Trial Cut Down $18 Million
The fourth trial is set to begin June 23, 2026, in Santa Ana, is expected to last about three days, and will be tried to an eight-person jury. Its only question is whether MGA’s conduct warrants punitive damages based on malice, oppression, or fraud.14Rolling Stone. T.I. Tiny OMG Girlz LOL Surprise Dolls $71 Million MGA Copying
At a final status hearing on June 8, 2026, Judge Selna issued tentative pretrial rulings on two contested issues. He signaled he would let the jury consider MGA’s use of the term “OMG” as a factor in evaluating punitive damages, but indicated he would likely block evidence that MGA had allegedly copied other artists, including singer Victoria Monét, who has accused MGA of borrowing visual concepts from her music video for Bratz promotional material. Admitting that evidence, he said, risked creating “a mini trial within the trial.”14Rolling Stone. T.I. Tiny OMG Girlz LOL Surprise Dolls $71 Million MGA Copying
MGA has argued a fourth trial is not warranted, contending the plaintiffs cannot introduce materially different evidence on willfulness. The company has also filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit.10Bloomberg Law. Unrivaled 2025: John Keville and Chante Westmoreland of Sheppard Mullin
For now, the $17.9 million compensatory judgment stands, and only the punitive damages piece is still live. Whether the Harrises walk away with roughly $18 million or something much larger will depend on what a new jury decides in Santa Ana in June 2026.